D
davidv
Guest
How do you know you haven’t found one, and simply miscategorized it as fallible?
- Status
B
Betterave
Guest
Excellent recommendation.
B
Betterave
Guest
What a hodge-podge of irrational reasoning! The Catechism contains the moral teaching of the Church that was founded and is guided by Jesus and the Holy Spirit: that’s how it can be certain. What did you think?? The fact that it doesn’t address everything is inevitable and doesn’t make it less certain with regards to what it does address.
S
secondeve
Guest
You didn’t act like a “reasonable adult” when you pompously told me “I do find it annoying to have people throw names and labels onto others; argumentatively speaking it’s one of the more annoying logically fallacies people engage in ,” when you obviously don’t know what a logical fallacy is. As for addressing the topic at hand, this is what you have totally failed to do!You ‘suggested’ it? Right. . .
Nowhere did I ever state or imply that the Pope was ‘infallible every time he opens his mouth’. Why do you keep on trying to imply or insinuate that I did?
You know, in my life that exists outside these forums, I have responsibilities, and thus, in attending to them, I let the ‘logically’ instead of logical slide instead of immediately correcting it. However, rather than make jeering remarks at posters who have or will make the same type of errors, I try to act like a reasonable adult and address the actual topic at hand. I’ve found this type of approach is far more helpful to all concerned and recommend it highly.
S
secondeve
Guest
There are rules for determining infallibility.
S
secondeve
Guest
You miss the point with unbelievable ignorance… so everything in the Catechsim is infallible? If not, which bits ARE?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
First, you need to show that the criteria for knowing with certainity what is right and wrong can ONLY be that which is adjudged by the Church under the heading of ‘solemn, infallible teaching.’
Where, exactly, does that assumption of yours come from?
B
Betterave
Guest
LOL! Your arrogance is hilarious! I’d say all the bits are infallible. Why would you think otherwise? Which bits do you think are not infallible? Just one example will do.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well, I’ve been asking Secondeve myself at least twice to give us some examples of problematic teaching from the Catechism. Between my lessons in ‘pomposity’ of course.
M
michelleds
Guest
The problem is that you are identifying as Catholic but don’t except Papal Infallibility, Tradition, Scripture, etc. What exactly is it that makes you identify as Catholic?
Do you accept Natural Law?
Do you believe in Transubstantiation?
Do you believe in the Resurrection?
The forgiveness of sins?
S
secondeve
Guest
Now we’re getting somewhere! There is no assumption: I am asking, what other criteria are there? If you know please give me details with references.
S
secondeve
Guest
I DO accept all these things, with the possible exception of Natural Law which I find difficult.
S
secondeve
Guest
As far as I am aware, the only parts of the Catechism which are infallible are those teachings derived from ex cathedra teachings of popes and the Canons of the Church Councils ( except for Vat II which had none).
B
Betterave
Guest
Do you think that an explicit appeal to infallibility is required for certainty?
[890](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/890.htm’)
The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 892 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"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
I’ll repeat my question to you: Which bits of the Catechism do you think are not infallible? (Just one example will do.)
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
Do you care to elaborate on this difficulty of yours? Or shall we stick to terse language?
M
michelleds
Guest
Okay, good. I think we’re making progress here towards understanding one another. Now, let’s not address natural law at this point. the other 3 things are items of faith found in the Bible. You say you believe them. They are addressed in the Catechism, again, you believe them. They are Truth, correct?
I’m guessing that the issue for you with regards to infallibility comes in with contraception, homosexuality, and/or abortion? is that correct?
I mean, you aren’t questioning Transubstantiation, Resurrection, and forgiveness of sins as taught by Catholicism; you aren’t saying that those teachings are wrong/fallible. so you must be struggling with something else.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Ah, but I believe I asked first. You say “this is no assumption”. . .but if it is no assumption, then it must be explicitly taught as a truth. Where is this teaching to be found?
And you’re asking ‘what other criteria are there’ – but if your assumption is not an assymption, you should be able to point me to chapter and verse to support your claim.
So I’m asking. . .WHERE did you find the explicit teaching whereby you are claiming that the ONLY criterion for determining right from wrong is a teaching of the Church which is a solemn and infallible teaching?
S
secondeve
Guest
I don’t know; that’s why I am asking. As for which bits, presumably all those bits that are not based upon infallible pronouncements of Popes and Councils, like the existence of limbo in the old catechism (not a good example as it’s not about morality, but you get the idea).Do you think that an explicit appeal to infallibility is required for certainty?
[890](javascript
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 892 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"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
I’ll repeat my question to you: Which bits of the Catechism do you think are not infallible? (Just one example will do.)
S
secondeve
Guest
With respect, you are confused. I am not making any claim or assumptions. I am simply asking a question. Let me put it this way:
- We know that solemn pronouncements are infallible.
- It follows that non-solemn pronouncements are not (otherwise what would be the distinction between these and the solemn ones?).
3)In view of the fact (if it is a fact) that there appear to be few if any solemn pronouncements on matters of morality, how do we know for certain what is right and wrong?
If some non-solemn pronouncements are to be regarded as certain so be it, but if this is so please give me the criteria and references.
S
secondeve
Guest
The dogmas you list are non-moral matters and are all matters of solemn infallible definition. My problem, as i have tried to make plain, is with non-infallible moral matters. Regarding abortion, I belive passionately that it is a dreadful act, and certainly mortally sinful, but I cannot find a solemn pronouncement on it, so it is just for me in the realm of my own personal opinion. A clear distinction is necessary here, between what I PERSONALLY am certain about, and what the Church gives us all certainty about, and how she gives that certainty.
- Status