D
diggerdomer
Guest
Where does the Catholic Church teach this? Just wondering. Thanks.
- Status
T
Tyrel
Guest
So, I have finished the paper, and I was happy with it for my part, but we’ll see what it receives when it comes back. In the meantime, I see some more responses, and I’m sorry it took me this long to get to them.
Of course, I came expecting to hear some answers I was going to disagree with, but I was looking both for a challenge to force me to think more clearly, and also for information (such as you’ve consistently provided, and for which I am thankful). It would have been somewhat naive of me to assume that everyone was going to agree with me on something about which there exists so much controversy and confusion in this post Vatican II era of the Catholic Church.
Ah, you’ve caught me
Of course, I came expecting to hear some answers I was going to disagree with, but I was looking both for a challenge to force me to think more clearly, and also for information (such as you’ve consistently provided, and for which I am thankful). It would have been somewhat naive of me to assume that everyone was going to agree with me on something about which there exists so much controversy and confusion in this post Vatican II era of the Catholic Church.
Interesting, I have read even relatively recently a good portion of Mystici Corporis Christi, and I should perhaps read it completely and move on to Unitatis Reditegratio. However, if I may be frank, I admit that what I expect to find if they are read with a hermeneutic of continuity is nothing in the least bit contradictory. Of course, if I were to read these, or Vatican II for that matter, with a hermeneutic of discontinuity then I wonder how I could still be in love with the Church. Further, Pope Pius XII is one of my favorite Popes, and hopefully I’ll be able to say ‘blessed’ soon enough if the cause of his canonization continues as it has → I would be hard pressed to believe that there was an outright contradiction in his thought, leaving aside the fact that, as the Pope in exercise of the ordinary Magisterium, I believe he was carried along by divine assistance. I outline arguments in my essay, and I’d be happy to share some of them, or send you a copy of the essay, though not with it’s bibliography or other information.
Sure, if you look up Donum Veritatis particularly from sections 32 to 36, this is all outlined painfully clearly.
C
cjforJesus
Guest
Hope you do well on your paper.
God bless
God bless
T
Tyrel
Guest
In case any of you are interested in reading the paper, here I have uploaded it to my Forum, without the annotated bibliography.
It’s not the best essay I’ve ever written, and I grow more dissatisfied with it all the time, but for whatever it’s worth, you are all welcome to read it.
forum.thirdmillennialtemplar.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5638
It’s not the best essay I’ve ever written, and I grow more dissatisfied with it all the time, but for whatever it’s worth, you are all welcome to read it.
forum.thirdmillennialtemplar.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5638
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Excellent reference.
Thanks!
So…does this mean Catholics have to accept everything the Church teaches …everything?..as inviolably true?
If yes, on what basis?
If no, how do we (individual Catholics) discern?
What do you think?
T
Tyrel
Guest
To my mind, it means that we have to accept whatever the Church ‘formally teaches’, such that it requires the assent of faith or religious assent. That acceptance, which is also an intellectual assent, being required because of divine assistance of the Holy Spirit, is to be acknowledged as true beyond doubt.
I outline my argument in the paper very very succinctly.
It may be important to note that there are some beliefs, such as Limbo, are not formally taught by the Church, but there are other beliefs which are formally taught which may be taken to imply it. For instance, that Hell is only for sinners, and heaven is only for the redeemed (I could give the references if I were composing this post in proximity to my library at home).
The trick then seems to be to find which beliefs are actually formally taught. If you read the paper, one clear way in which we can find if something is formally taught is outlined in Lumen Gentium (though I regret that I actually cut the quotation short, because it goes on in the next sentence or two to provide directions for how to discern what any Pope is formally teaching according to his manifest will and mind).
I outline my argument in the paper very very succinctly.
It may be important to note that there are some beliefs, such as Limbo, are not formally taught by the Church, but there are other beliefs which are formally taught which may be taken to imply it. For instance, that Hell is only for sinners, and heaven is only for the redeemed (I could give the references if I were composing this post in proximity to my library at home).
The trick then seems to be to find which beliefs are actually formally taught. If you read the paper, one clear way in which we can find if something is formally taught is outlined in Lumen Gentium (though I regret that I actually cut the quotation short, because it goes on in the next sentence or two to provide directions for how to discern what any Pope is formally teaching according to his manifest will and mind).
S
steve_b
Guest
**892 **Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.I have already submitted my question in the “Ask an apologist” section. However, until it is answered, I figured maybe I would throw it out here more generally for the community to deal with.
My question concerns the theological difference between that which is infallible so as to demand the religious assent of Catholics, and that which is infallible so as to demand the assent of faith. I note this distinction appears in Paragraph 892 of the Church’s Catechism.
I ask this question both because I, as a convert to Catholicism and something of an apologist, have wondered about this distinction myself. However, more practically my evangelical professor of theology has heard me taking issue with Catholics who step out of line with the Church’s formal teachings. He has challenged me to write an essay in defense of maintaining a broader infallibility than is adhered to by those Catholic teachers and theologians who would argue that contraception, an exclusively male priesthood, the inerrancy of Scripture, the origin of the human community from two first parents, and such-like beliefs are open to theological dissent.
Catholic Encyclopedia outlines three organs of infallibility;
Three organs have been mentioned:
• the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
• ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
• the pope himself separately.
The first seems to be that which Pope Pius XII refers at the outset of Humani Generis:
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”
~ Humani Generis
I note also that Vatican I said clearly: “And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.”
~ Vatican I Pastor Aeternus
However, does this apply only to judgments of the Roman Pontiff which are Ex Cathedra, or does this apply to statements which are infallible by reason of the ordinary organ of infallibility? (my instinct tells me that it applies to both, but I would like some corroboration).
Can a belief which requires religious assent without the assent of faith ever be in doubt? Can it change? Is it of another kind of infallibility? If not, why does the Church’s vocabulary make this distinction between religious assent and the assent of faith?
Thank you for your time, my essay is due Tuesday, so I do hope somebody on here can set me straight.
Cheers
IOW distinguishing between Religion and faith. Religion is the specific practice of one’s faith. One gives assent to both.
T
Tyrel
Guest
That’s not quite right, as you’ll see if you read through the rest of the thread, or just go straight to my essay where I outline it more clearly. It’s up to you.
S
steve_b
Guest
how so?
T:
I’ve read the thread, and I notice you said you’ve become less enchanted with your essay as time moves on.
Your question was concerning the difference between religious assent and assent of faith.
- religious assent and assent of faith requires personal assent by an individual for both Religion and faith.
- Religion being the specific practice of one’s faith, it stands to reason, since one’s practices is an extension of what one believes, It also stands to reason, faith needs to be without error. So that the practice of that faith, is also without error.
- We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.
T
Tyrel
Guest
Well, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you, but as I pointed out, there are many beliefs which require religious assent, such as that Jesus is the Savior of the world, which are not proclaimed infallibly as of yet. However, whether or not they have the status of infallibility, it is still the case that all beliefs which require religious assent cannot be thought to be in any kind of doubt, and we have to afford such beliefs the entire assent of intellect and will.
I’ll repeat what I’ve already said, only because I suspect you haven’t read it.
“When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.”
~ Donum Veritatis 23.
“When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.”
~ Donum Veritatis 23.
"38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.
The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised."
~ Donum Veritatis, 38
Finally, I guess I would just direct you to the arguments outlined in my essay. I am happy to announce I got an A+, so thank you NHInsider and others for helping me think through the issues with some very appreciated feedback.
forum.thirdmillennialtemplar.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5638
I’ll repeat what I’ve already said, only because I suspect you haven’t read it.
“When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.”
~ Donum Veritatis 23.
“When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.”
~ Donum Veritatis 23.
"38. Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.
The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian. The propositions of faith are not the product of mere individual research and free criticism of the Word of God but constitute an ecclesial heritage. If there occur a separation from the Bishops who watch over and keep the apostolic tradition alive, it is the bond with Christ which is irreparably compromised."
~ Donum Veritatis, 38
Finally, I guess I would just direct you to the arguments outlined in my essay. I am happy to announce I got an A+, so thank you NHInsider and others for helping me think through the issues with some very appreciated feedback.
forum.thirdmillennialtemplar.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5638
S
steve_b
Guest
Doesn’t scripture say Jesus is savior of the world? Yes. Isn’t scripture infallible?
T:
True.
T:
True. Did you think I was disagreeing with this?
T:
Did you think I was disagreeing with this?
T:
Did you think I was disagreeing with this?
T:
Congrats on your grade.
T
Tyrel
Guest
Scripture is inerrant, or at least that is the position of the Catholic Church. I note ironically that that belief is not proclaimed infallibly, and thus many Catholic theologians who disagree with it voice dissent. That dissent is not allowed. But no, technically speaking the scriptures aren’t infallible, because infallibility is a charism which has to do with the interpretation of revelation, and Scripture is not an interpretation of revelation but is part of the deposit of faith itself. However, that Jesus is the savior, or the only savior of the entire world - those things are a matter of interpretation. In fact, that there is even a historical Jesus implied by the texts is a matter of interpretation.
Yes, I was under that impression, although as I said It could be that I was misunderstanding you.
It was probably because you said:
However, it is not as though religious assent is required for matters with practical implications alone, but there is a great deal of theological orthodoxy at stake as well. In other words a belief which requires religious assent requires faith in the propositional truth of what the Ordinary Magisterium proposes or puts forward.
In the end what I was concerned about defending is that beliefs which require religious assent are not beliefs which we can simply formally or outwardly assent to, but which we must believe in as propositionally true, under the instinct of the obedience of faith. In other words, whatever is proposed for belief by the ordinary magisterium is proposed with divine assistance, and cannot be erroneous. It may not be recognized for the time being by the Church as proclaimed infallibly, but it continues to be more than just a conventional belief which the Church could change if she wanted to. Religious assent is afforded beliefs which are true, which are binding on all Catholics. In a practical sense, there is not much difference between that which demands the assent of faith and that which demands religious assent, except that the beliefs which require the assent of faith are rejected under pain of mortal sin.
Thanks
V
Vince1022
Guest
I’m not aware of any Catholic teaching that says the Scripture is infallible. Can you clarify? Thanks!
T
Tyrel
Guest
In answer to the above question, I should maintain again that what the Church teaches is that scripture is inerrant. I cannot help but want to be lazy and direct people to a thread on my own forum, which is admittedly not as lively as this forum.
forum.thirdmillennialtemplar.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25
I promise I’m not advertising, I’m just being Lazy.
forum.thirdmillennialtemplar.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25
I promise I’m not advertising, I’m just being Lazy.
S
steve_b
Guest
True.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp
When I looked back on what I wrote, time expired, it was too late to make the change.
V
Vince1022
Guest
If the Church teaches such, then please provide a reference to where the Church teaches such. No disrespect to your own forum of course, just looking for Church teaching. Thanks.In answer to the above question, I should maintain again that what the Church teaches is that scripture is inerrant. I cannot help but want to be lazy and direct people to a thread on my own forum, which is admittedly not as lively as this forum.
forum.thirdmillennialtemplar.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=25
I promise I’m not advertising, I’m just being Lazy.
V
Vince1022
Guest
The Bible is not Infallible.True.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp
When I looked back on what I wrote, time expired, it was too late to make the change.
I agree, thanks.
T
Tyrel
Guest
Did you, perchance, click the link and take a look? I gathered in that thread multiple quotes from the Church fathers, but more specifically from Encyclicals which time and again affirmed that the Bible is inerrant. What more could you want exactly?
V
Vince1022
Guest
Yes, I did review that link.Did you, perchance, click the link and take a look? I gathered in that thread multiple quotes from the Church fathers, but more specifically from Encyclicals which time and again affirmed that the Bible is inerrant. What more could you want exactly?
The only time “inerrant” (or “inerrancy”) was mentioned was in your own comments, right? Nothing in any of the Church fathers or Encyclicals. Right?
If that’s correct, then it’s clear that you are claiming Scripture is inerrant, but it’s not at all clear that the Catholic Church does.
That’s my point.
S
steve_b
Guest
Maybe this will help
While the word inerrant is not used in the following document, Dei Verbum makes it clear scripture is without error (inerrant). Not partially, but all of scripture is without error (inerrant)
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text). DV ch III, paragraph 11]
"
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
discussion
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512bt.asp
A further point
**Q: A Catholic writer said many of the first English Bibles were in terrible error. Isn’t this a manifestation of Catholic prejudice against the Bible? The Bible is inerrant. **
A: The Catholic Church affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, but that doesn’t mean each edition of each translation is free from error. There have been many vernacular editions of the Bible that can only be described as embarrassing. Some were filled with printer’s errors, others with translator’s errors.
In one Bible one of the commandments was printed without the word not. This Bible became known as “the b.asphemous Bible” because it said, “Thou shalt take the Lord’s name in vain.” Sometimes translations were odd to the point of misrepresentation. In one, Adam and Eve are described as wearing “breeches” made from fig leaves, but breeches are a fairly modern type of clothing.
Inerrancy does not mean printers and translators are protected from error. (Any writer can tell you that, and he’ll throw in editors too!)
taken from
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103qq.asp
- Status