Heresy in the Catechism?

[DixitDominus]

Obviously I do not beleive that there is heresy in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or in its Compendium; however, the answer to question seven of the CCCC confused me. It states (emphass added) that “after their fall, he [God] did not cease his revelation to them [Adam and Eve] but promised salvation for all their descendants”. According to Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it is a dogma that “God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.” How are we then to understand, then, the Compendium’s statement that God promised salvation for all Adam’s descendants?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Obviously I do not beleive that there is heresy in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or in its Compendium; however, the answer to question seven of the CCCC confused me. It states (emphass added) that “after their fall, he [God] did not cease his revelation to them [Adam and Eve] but promised salvation for all their descendants”. According to Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it is a dogma that “God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.” How are we then to understand, then, the Compendium’s statement that God promised salvation for all Adam’s descendants?

God does offer Salvation to all persons, all however do not accept it, and reject it by their personal sins.

 

[LilyM]

Obviously the compendium is not an in-depth document - nor even a ‘sure norm’ as the CCC is. And sometimes may sacrifice something in accuracy for the sake of brevity.

Simply put, God has promised the MEANS of salvation, rather than actual salvation, to every man indeed. He desires the salvation of all.

With all respect to Dr Ott (who remember is also not infallible, for all his many virtues) I take issue with the idea of God ‘predestining’ or ‘willing’ anyone to go to hell.

Except in the broadest possible sense of ‘predestination’ or ‘will’, which is that He wills them to enjoy free will, knowing (though not desiring, quite the contrary) that for some the end result will be their rejection of Him and damnation.

It’s like saying a parent who gives birth to a child, knowing that that child will suffer at times as all human beings do, predestines or wills that child to suffer. Not true except in the broadest possible sense that they permit it as they permit all inevitable but undesired consequences of giving that child life.

 

[diggerdomer]

Obviously I do not beleive that there is heresy in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or in its Compendium; however, the answer to question seven of the CCCC confused me. It states (emphass added) that “after their fall, he [God] did not cease his revelation to them [Adam and Eve] but promised salvation for all their descendants”. According to Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it is a dogma that “God, by an eternal resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection.” How are we then to understand, then, the Compendium’s statement that God promised salvation for all Adam’s descendants?

The obviousl answer is who and what the heck is Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma? The question should not be “Heresy in the Catechism?” but rather “heresy in Ott?”

What relevance could that have compared to official Church teaching?

We should understand the Compendium, and Catechism, and any other Church teaching for what it is. We should understand Ott (or any other goofy thoughts) based on those…not vice versa. It’s not the CCC that should confuse you, it’s Ott that should.

Cheers

 

[SedesDomi]

Ott is wrong.

Ott ought to know better.

“Why, I oughta…”

 

[Benadam]

Maybe the state that one is destined for should not be termed ‘predestined’ on account of God’s forsight and relationship with according to that distiny?

 

[DixitDominus]

God does offer Salvation to all persons, all however do not accept it, and reject it by their personal sins.

Thank you. That confirms what I was thinking.

The obviousl answer is who and what the heck is Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma?

What relevance could that have compared to official Church teaching?

We should understand the Compendium, and Catechism, and any other Church teaching for what it is. We should understand Ott (or any other goofy thoughts) based on those…not vice versa. It’s not the CCC that should confuse you, it’s Ott that should.

In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott analyzed the teachings of the Church up to the time of the book’s publication (the 1950s). Ott says which teachings the Magisterium sets forth as divinely revealed and which teachings it has definitively proposed, as well as which teachings have a lower degree of certainty. Though I do not have the book with me now, Ott always quotes an Ecumenical Council or Pope who taught any doctrine that he says is “de fide”.

 

[LilyM]

In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ott analyzed the teachings of the Church up to the time of the book’s publication (the 1950s). Ott says which teachings the Magisterium sets forth as divinely revealed and which teachings it has definitively proposed, as well as which teachings have a lower degree of certainty. Though I do not have the book with me now, Ott always quotes an Ecumenical Council or Pope who taught any doctrine that he says is “de fide”.

Yes, but not all pronouncments of Popes or Ecumenical Councils are in fact infallible or require assent. Vatican 2 taught no dogma at all, athough it said many fine things.

You are relying on Dr Ott’s judgement as to what fulfils the criteria of infallibility or required belief or not, and his opinion on such matters is not infallible - there’s every chance that his opinion on certain teachings might be wrong.

 

[diggerdomer]

, Ott analyzed the teachings of the Church up to the time of the book’s publication (the 1950s)

Good for Ott.

But obviously there have been a lot of changes since the 1950s. Like, for instance, an ecumenical council (Vatican II) which is the highest form of teaching authority in the Church.

So, again…let’s start with what the Church teaches and interpret other sources in light of that.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, but not all pronouncments of Popes or Ecumenical Councils are in fact infallible or require assent. .

Oh, really? What’s the basis for that claim? I’d really appreciate some documentation or reference form the Church that says what the Pope or ecumenical councils teach does not require consent. My understanding is that all teaching of the Magisterium obliges the faithful to consent.

Cheers

 

[LilyM]

Oh, really? What’s the basis for that claim? I’d really appreciate some documentation or reference form the Church that says what the Pope or ecumenical councils teach does not require consent. My understanding is that all teaching of the Magisterium obliges the faithful to consent.

Cheers

CCC

"88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority … when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. "

So clearly not every ‘proposal’, even proposals in the form of teaching, that comes from a Pope or Council is authoritative - ONLY those that are proposed in such a form that obliges assent. The corollary of this is that there exist forms that do NOT oblige assent.

In the case of Papal teaching, the criteria under which assent is required are strictly defined - the Pope

a) MUST speak ‘ex Cathedra’ (as Popes expressly did NOT do in the case of Humanae Vitae for one, and Pope Benedict’s book ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ for another),

b) MUST speak to matter of faith and morals (ie if the Pope pronounces on which brand of car or football team is, in his opinion, the best, such is not required belief)

c) MUST intend to bind for all time. Thus we are free to disagree with and even criticise the discipline of priestly celibacy, as disciplines can be changed from time to time and thus are not permanent, but must agree and assent to the dogma that women cannot be ordained, which is incapable of change or revocation.

Now Vatican II was merely a pastoral council and pronounced no dogma - our Holy Father says as much en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council:

In a 22 December 2005 speech to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict XVI decried those who interpreted the documents of the Council in terms of “discontinuity and rupture”. The proper interpretation, he said, is that proposed at the start and at the close of the Council by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI.

On opening the Council, Pope John XXIII stated that the Council intended “to transmit the doctrine pure and entire, without diminution or distortion”, adding: “It is our duty not only to guard this precious treasure, as if interested only in antiquity, but also to devote ourselves readily and fearlessly to the work our age requires. … This sure unchangeable doctrine, which must be faithfully respected, has to be studied in depth and presented in a way that fits the requirements of our time. For the deposit of the faith, that is, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, is one thing, and the way in which they are enunciated, while still preserving the same meaning and fullness, is another.” After thus quoting his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI then declared: “Wherever this interpretation has guided reception of the Council, new life has grown and new fruit has ripened. … Today we see that the good seed, though slow in developing, is nonetheless growing, and our profound gratitude for the Council’s work is growing likewise.”

It is clear from these quotes that the intent was to preserve and transmit existing teachings, not to formulate new ones!

 

[diggerdomer]

CCC

So clearly not every ‘proposal’, even proposals in the form of teaching, that comes from a Pope or Council is authoritative - ONLY those that are proposed in such a form that obliges assent. The corollary of this is that there exist forms that do NOT oblige assent.

Once again this seems to be a matter of picking and choosing what you want to believe. Read a few paragraphs earlier to the one you cite in the Catechism, i.e 85-87.

Yes, there are degrees of authority in teaching, but to suggest that only some oblige assent is simply wrong. You seem to quote references that apply to the charism of infallibility. Fine. But if such-and-such a teaching is not taught infallibly, that does NOT mean it’s not true, or binding, and so on.

Sorry.

Cheers

 

[LilyM]

Once again this seems to be a matter of picking and choosing what you want to believe. Read a few paragraphs earlier to the one you cite in the Catechism, i.e 85-87.

Yes, there are degrees of authority in teaching, but to suggest that only some oblige assent is simply wrong. You seem to quote references that apply to the charism of infallibility. Fine. But if such-and-such a teaching is not taught infallibly, that does NOT mean it’s not true, or binding, and so on.

Sorry.

Cheers

I’m picking and choosing nothing. The very words are plainly there on the face of the catechism - ‘in a form obliging … irrevocable adherence of faith’. Other forms clearly, by logical extension, do NOT similarly oblige irrevocable adherence of faith. The sentence is mere nonsense if ALL forms oblige irrevocable adherence of faith.

What, by the way, is the point of drawing a distinction between infallible and non-infallible teaching if ALL teaching requires belief?

By your logic even some material from the Popes which they THEMSELVES expressly state to be non-binding, such as Benedict XVI said in his book Jesus of Nazareth, would nonetheless demand the assent of the faithful, which is patent nonsense.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m picking and choosing nothing. The very words are plainly there on the face of the catechism - ‘in a form obliging … irrevocable adherence of faith’. Other forms clearly, by logical extension, do NOT similarly oblige irrevocable adherence of faith. The sentence is mere nonsense if ALL forms oblige irrevocable adherence of faith.

What, by the way, is the point of drawing a distinction between infallible and non-infallible teaching if ALL teaching requires belief?

By your logic even some material from the Popes which they THEMSELVES expressly state to be non-binding, such as Benedict XVI said in his book Jesus of Nazareth, would nonetheless demand the assent of the faithful, which is patent nonsense.

You’re reading things into what I expressed. I didn’t say ALL forms oblige irrevocable adherence of faith. The Church doesn’t either. I did say that non-infallible forms of teaching still require measures of assent (as the Church teaches). Look at Canon Law 747ff. Your citation of CCC para 88 (is that right? let me know if I’m misreading you) perhaps missed how it says “the fullest extent”–not the “only” extent. There are degrees of teaching, and similarly degrees of assent, but still the presumption is assent.

You raise a good question about the distinction of infallible and non-infallible means of teaching. I think that’s too complicated and abstruse to get into in this thread. Unless you think that the only teachings of the Catholic Church binding on the faithful are those that have been taught infallibly, in which case we need to converse further.

Cheers

 

[LilyM]

You’re reading things into what I expressed. I didn’t say ALL forms oblige irrevocable adherence of faith. The Church doesn’t either. I did say that non-infallible forms of teaching still require measures of assent (as the Church teaches). Look at Canon Law 747ff. Your citation of CCC para 88 (is that right? let me know if I’m misreading you) perhaps missed how it says “the fullest extent”–not the “only” extent. There are degrees of teaching, and similarly degrees of assent, but still the presumption is assent.

You raise a good question about the distinction of infallible and non-infallible means of teaching. I think that’s too complicated and abstruse to get into in this thread. Unless you think that the only teachings of the Catholic Church binding on the faithful are those that have been taught infallibly, in which case we need to converse further.

Cheers

There aren’t degrees of assent - either you assent to a teaching (agree with it) or you don’t assent.

If the church says ‘Jesus died on the cross’ you can either assent - which means ‘yes, I believe Jesus died on the Cross’ - or not assent ‘I don’t believe, either because I’m unsure that it happened or I don’t believe it did happen’.

To go by degrees - for example, to say ‘yes, I believe He died, no I don’t believe it was on the cross’, is not actually assent.

Similarly there aren’t ‘degrees of bindingness’ in Church teaching. Either something binds or it doesn’t. That’s why Jesus said ‘what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’, and neither ‘you can partially bind things’, nor ‘EVERYTHING you teach - for example as a private individual and not invoking your office as bishop or Pope, and with deliberate intent that it remain non-binding - is nonetheless bound in heaven simply because you choose to say it’.

You see your logic leads to a species of schizophrenia. Followed to its logical conclusion, it would have us believe in Arianism alongside Pope Honorius who turned Arian for a time, as well as its opposite which was defended by Church council.

We would have to believe that Galileo was wrong along with the Pope who condemned him and his theories, at the same time as believing heartily that Galileo was not wrong and that the church erred grievously in its treatment of him along with John Paul 2 who stated such.

We’d have probably to believe as many contradictory things as there are Popes whose statements can be searched for contradictions of the statements of others.

 

[diggerdomer]

There aren’t degrees of assent - either you assent to a teaching (agree with it) or you don’t assent.

Check out Canon Law 747-755, this may give you an insight into what I’m referring to.

Cheers

 

[LilyM]

This doesn’t say nearly as much as you think it does.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time **proposed as divinely revealed **either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

Not every opinion or statement of a Pope or bishop is 'proposed as divinely revealed’, is it? Even bishops or Popes will tell you that most of their opinions and statements are quite the contrary of ‘proposed as divinely revealed’.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

What does it mean to propose something ‘definitively’? Is it impossible for a Pope or Bishop to propose something WITHOUT intending for it to be definitive? Of course - and I’ll get onto that in a minute.

Is Dr Ott incapable of mistake or error in HIS knowledge and discernment of what it means to propose something - definitively or otherwise?

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Again, what does it mean to ‘exercise the authentic magisterium’? Doesn’t it imply that there can be some other kind of exercise of authority and power that can be undertaken by bishops and Popes?

Do those bishops who teach that it’s fine and dandy to give pro-abortion politicians communion exercise the authentic magisterium? If not, why not? Do those who teach the opposite exercise the authentic magisterium? Again, if not, why not?

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind **to the authentic magisterium **of their bishops.

Again with those magic words - what does ‘authentic magisterium’ mean and is Dr Ott unable to make an error or mistake in his ability to distinguish ‘authentic’ magisterium from any other kind - or indeed from pronouncements which were not even intended to be any sort of exercise of the Magisterium or any kind?

 

[diggerdomer]

Catechism 90 In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."

That’s what I’m referring to. There are “degrees”

 

[diggerdomer]

CCC

"88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority … when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. "

So clearly not every ‘proposal’, even proposals in the form of teaching, that comes from a Pope or Council is authoritative - ONLY those that are proposed in such a form that obliges assent. The corollary of this is that there exist forms that do NOT oblige assent.

In the case of Papal teaching, the criteria under which assent is required are strictly defined - the Pope

a) MUST speak ‘ex Cathedra’ (as Popes expressly did NOT do in the case of Humanae Vitae for one, and Pope Benedict’s book ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ for another),

b) MUST speak to matter of faith and morals (ie if the Pope pronounces on which brand of car or football team is, in his opinion, the best, such is not required belief)

c) MUST intend to bind for all time. Thus we are free to disagree with and even criticise the discipline of priestly celibacy, as disciplines can be changed from time to time and thus are not permanent, but must agree and assent to the dogma that women cannot be ordained, which is incapable of change or revocation.

Now Vatican II was merely a pastoral council and pronounced no dogma - our Holy Father says as much en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council:

I disagree. It’s not true, simply, that “So clearly not every ‘proposal’, even proposals in the form of teaching, that comes from a Pope or Council is authoritative - ONLY those that are proposed in such a form that obliges assent. The corollary of this is that there exist forms that do NOT oblige assent.”

Yes, not everything the Pope says is binding on all. He has many different forms of teaching (encyclicals, allocutions, addresses, letters, constitutions) all of which have their varying degrees of authority.

But anything promulgated by an ecumenical council (there’s no higher teaching authority) is binding.

The items you note for Papal teaching apply to the Pope’s exercising the charism of infallibility. The Pope has teaching authority, though, even when not speaking “ex cathedra” (which has only happened twice in history). To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Just because the Pope is not presenting a given teaching infallibly does not mean the teaching does not require assent.

Yes Vatican II did not intend to proclaim dogma. That does not mean its teachings are not binding, and I’d certainly appreciate a reference other than Wikipedia if you think otherwise.

Cheers

 

[thistle]

I disagree. It’s not true, simply, that “So clearly not every ‘proposal’, even proposals in the form of teaching, that comes from a Pope or Council is authoritative - ONLY those that are proposed in such a form that obliges assent. The corollary of this is that there exist forms that do NOT oblige assent.”

Yes, not everything the Pope says is binding on all. He has many different forms of teaching (encyclicals, allocutions, addresses, letters, constitutions) all of which have their varying degrees of authority.

But anything promulgated by an ecumenical council (there’s no higher teaching authority) is binding.

The items you note for Papal teaching apply to the Pope’s exercising the charism of infallibility. The Pope has teaching authority, though, even when not speaking “ex cathedra” (which has only happened twice in history). To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Just because the Pope is not presenting a given teaching infallibly does not mean the teaching does not require assent.

Yes Vatican II did not intend to proclaim dogma. That does not mean its teachings are not binding, and I’d certainly appreciate a reference other than Wikipedia if you think otherwise.

Cheers

Some things the Pope says are not only not binding on all but not binding at all on anybody. For example, what he writes in his books is not binding and we are free to disagree with him.