J
Jacob50
Guest
So I was reading it today and asked myself about it. Since it is the Church’s teachings, and the Church cannot error, is it infallible? Yes? No? Why?
- Status
D
Della
Guest
Well, it depends on what you mean. Do you mean that every word, as it is written, is infallible or that the teachings of the Church contained in the CCC are infallible? If the first, then I’d have to say no because no catechism is meant to be a replacement for Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. But the teachings of the Church that it contains certainly are infallible. Therefore, if you are asking if the CCC is reliable, if we can trust that it is truthful, then yes, it is, if that is what you mean. 
A
Anathama_Sit
Guest
Greetings Della,
If I might quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is in the beginning of the document, it is taken from Fidei Depositum - On the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Remember it is Blessed Pope John Paul II writing.
Anathama Sit
If I might quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is in the beginning of the document, it is taken from Fidei Depositum - On the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Remember it is Blessed Pope John Paul II writing.
God Bless.
Anathama Sit
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
I do not respond to this poll, for truth does not depend on polls. If 99.999% of people believe that the Sun does not exist, the poll does not prove that the Sun does not exists.
Infalible is when the Church talks exCathedra.
A
Anathama_Sit
Guest
Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,
Actually the Church does not speak ex Cathedra. That would be the Pope that would do that.
And Infalibility encompasses more than just the Pope speaking ex cathedra. There’s more to it.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Catechism of the Catholic Church would fall under this see my quote in the post above. The teachings and doctrines set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are infallible.
God Bless.
Anathama Sit
P
PiousTemplar
Guest
Doesn’t the Catechism simply teach infallible teachings? I don’t think it’s infallible in itself.
T
twinc
Guest
which catechism are we to accept - what about before the Catechism and also in between Catechisms - considering the difference between the present one and the previous ones in the space of about thirty years,one wonders what the next one is going to be like - I could be mistaken but was limbo of the infants ever in the Catechism but not now - twinc
A
Asimis
Guest
No it is not, yet some of the teachings it presents may be as well as some of the sources it cites.
D
Della
Guest
Precisely. There are any number of catechisms that are perfectly fine to consult and use as a guide to Church teaching, such as the old Baltimore Catechism or the Penny Catechism (although written for children, it helped bring about the conversion of the great G. K. Chesterton). The Catechism itself is not infallible but the teachings of the Church it expounds upon, certainly are.
It’s like the pope himself is not infallible but when he speaks as Peter, he is infallible. It’s a fine distinction that some may find hard to grasp, but the distinction is important.
The bottom line is, as Anathama Sit cited Bl. JPII, it is the norm for Catholic teaching, which means it is reliable, and that’s all we need to understand in order to use it for our benefit.
T
twinc
Guest
though of course,in my experience,it seems Catholics would sooner accept that the Catechism is inerrant but the Bible is not - it seems even an imprimatur and nihil obstat cannot be relied on - twinc
D
Della
Guest
I don’t know what Catholics you are referring to, but even if every Catholic in the world thought so, it wouldn’t change the fact that the Church has always taught that the Bible is inerrant. We cannot base our faith on what we think most others think/believe, but on the truths Christ entrusted to his Church.
These say nothing about the content of any book so approved except that there is nothing contrary to Church teaching within it, and that’s all it states. Any speculations by authors are just that and nothing more.
In the case of the CCC, however, it is completely reliable and accurate. It really doesn’t help for us to muddy the water with unsubstantiated guesses but rather to trust the Church knows what it is doing. Vague doubts about anything approved by our bishops really helps no one. Unless one has proof that a work approved by a bishop is heretical or sails too close to the edge of orthodoxy, there is no need to question its veracity.
T
twinc
Guest
so your Bishops are okay but how about ours with their ‘The Gift of Scripture’ and partial inerrancy etc and other nonsense being taught in our Catholic schools and highlighted by our Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice.com as not fit for consumption by Catholic teenagers even though carrying the imprimatur and nihil obstat etc - btw re Catholics and the Bible via Google search box have a look at [Response to L Conte Jr] - twinc
D
Della
Guest
I am not familiar with the material you are discussing here, and I think we would be going off topic to go into it. As to Catholics and the Bible, I don’t doubt many Catholics have odd notions about the Bible and a good many other things considering the catechesis of the last generation has been bad or missing. That still says nothing about what the Church teaches. If any bishop is teaching something that is not in line with the Church, you are free to contact the proper authorities in the Vatican. Others would know who they are, but as I said, we don’t want to take the OP’s thread off topic. If you want to discuss your concerns with others on CAF, you should start a new thread so this one doesn’t become highjacked.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I voted NO; however, I would not talk about fallible vs. infallible teaching. I would look at it by saying that not all the teachings that are in the CCC have the same certitude. The Catholic Truth can be looked from this point of view where the certitude is defined as:
De fide divina: By divine faith. That is it must be believed. These are such things as Canons of Council of Trent, Vatican I, etc. declare a dogma.
De fide Catolica: The church has always believed it. It is part of the faith (e.g. the creed).
De fide de finita: The church has always believed it but once in history a Pope has made a definition. (e.g. 1854 – Pope Pius IX proclaimed dogma of Immaculate Conception-this was always believed but was now defined on exactly what this was supposed to mean.
Fide Proxima: Close to the faith. It is not a dogma but the church has always believed it and it could be a dogma at any time. (e.g. Mary as Co-Redemptrix: Our Lady had first role in helping Our Lord in redemption, although only Jesus saves) This is a Sententia Fide Proxima, that is you may not deny it without fear of punishment from God.
Sententia Certa: It is not actually of the faith but we are very sure about it.
**Sententia Communis: ** We may not be very sure about it but everyone says so, not in sense of democracy but in sense of historical accordance. Most of saints, theologians, Popes throughout centuries agreed on it.
Sententia Probabalis: It is probable. We don’t know exactly. (e.g. if a person in mortal sin dies and makes a perfect act of contrition the church teaches most probably he will be saved).
K
Katholish
Guest
On matters of faith or morals? Check
Promulgated to the Universal Church? Check
Meant to be definitive teaching? (Check, at least the sections set forth as official teaching and not the explanation sections)
Promulgated by the Bishop of Rome acting in his capacity as universal teacher? Check.
These are the four criteria set forth in Pastor Aeternus (First Vatican Council) to define acts of papal infallibility, and it is really the only definitive source for this kind of discussion.
I mention that it seems that all of the criteria are met, but would be interested in an arguemnt to the contrary for those who hold the position that it is not an infallible document.
Promulgated to the Universal Church? Check
Meant to be definitive teaching? (Check, at least the sections set forth as official teaching and not the explanation sections)
Promulgated by the Bishop of Rome acting in his capacity as universal teacher? Check.
These are the four criteria set forth in Pastor Aeternus (First Vatican Council) to define acts of papal infallibility, and it is really the only definitive source for this kind of discussion.
I mention that it seems that all of the criteria are met, but would be interested in an arguemnt to the contrary for those who hold the position that it is not an infallible document.
A
Anathama_Sit
Guest
Greetings Christiano,
I am not sure I agree with those definitions. These are not the standard definitions that I have learned about in studying Sacred Theology. Where in the world did you get these definitions?
I am quoting from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott
The Thelogical Grades of Certainty
- De Fide - The Highest degree of certanity appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belif due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing [Fide divina], and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainity is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church [fides catholica.]. If Truths are defined by a solemn judgement of faith [definition] of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definiata.”
- Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church [fides ecclesiastica]. These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
- A Teaching proximate to Faith [sententia fidei proxima] is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulated as such by the Church.
- A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e. theologically certain [sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e. theologice certa] is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinisic connection with the doctrine of revelation [theological conclusions.]
- Common Teaching [sententia communis] is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
- Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded [sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata.] Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions [sententia pia]. The least degree of certainity is possessed by the tolerated opinion [opinio tolerato], which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
God Bless.
Anathama Sit
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
Then, Anathema Sit (there is wrong spelling in your name), what is, for you, The Church?
A
Anathama_Sit
Guest
Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,
First of with the name, I realize that it is misspelled. Anathema Sit had already been taken as a user name. So I varied the spelling as well in my user name. I am notoriously horrible at spelling, so I thought it was most fitting as a user name.
Second, what is the Church? I am failing to see why you are asking this in response to what I quoted.
The Church is that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that we profess to in the Nicene Creed every Sunday.
I could go into more detail but suffice it to say that this is the most simplistic answer to this question that you have framed for me to answer.
God Bless.
Anathama Sit
T
twinc
Guest
how is it then that when the Catechism at CCC 327 and Vatican 1 and three other councils agree then what they agree on has been and is blatantly ignored and not really or readily accepted and has not been widely circulated in the past and even now - see www.cfnews.org/sung-pio.htm - I await your comments - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
- Status