Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church infallible?

[Cristiano]

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

1. 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.”
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.]
5. Common Teaching [sententia communis] is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. 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.

There are many descrapancies with your definitions and as I did not wish to address each one, I only wished to give the correct definitions.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

I extracted the info from:

A Summary of Fr. Hesse’s talk on the documents of Vatican II

Fr. Hesse qualifications: Fr. Hesse was appointed theologian by the Holy Father, John Paul II. He has his Doctorate from the Pontifical University in Rome in theology and canon law. Fr. Hesse spent 15 years in Rome and was the secretary for Cardinal Stickler for 2 years.

Those definitions still might be wrong, but for sure he knows more than I do.

 

[Cristiano]

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

I am sorry but I do not get at all what you are trying to say.

CCC 327: The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.

What does this paragraph has anything to do with what I posted about?

I am totally confused and so I do not know what to answer.

 

[Rock_Happy]

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

1. 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.”
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.]
5. Common Teaching [sententia communis] is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. 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.

There are many descrapancies with your definitions and as I did not wish to address each one, I only wished to give the correct definitions.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

We can’t even say with certainty that the Bible has been translated completely accurately. That effort continues to this day by some very learned theologians and historians. So, there is no way to say that any derivative work is infallible. That does not diminish from its value as a guide to the Faith. In fact, knowing that it can improve over time, and that it is a living document, increases its relevancy and importance.

 

[Xntrik]

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?

Excellent question, Jacob!

 

[Anathama_Sit]

We can’t even say with certainty that the Bible has been translated completely accurately. That effort continues to this day by some very learned theologians and historians. So, there is no way to say that any derivative work is infallible. That does not diminish from its value as a guide to the Faith. In fact, knowing that it can improve over time, and that it is a living document, increases its relevancy and importance.

Greetings Rock Happy,

I will have to agree to disagree with you. The Bible is infallible. Case closed. I notice that you are Christian, which tells me that you may not believe as the Catholic Church teaches.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

#107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Our understanding of the bible may change. Translations may change, but the doctrines and the revelation and the truth in the Bible will never change.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I extracted the info from:

A Summary of Fr. Hesse’s talk on the documents of Vatican II

Fr. Hesse qualifications: Fr. Hesse was appointed theologian by the Holy Father, John Paul II. He has his Doctorate from the Pontifical University in Rome in theology and canon law. Fr. Hesse spent 15 years in Rome and was the secretary for Cardinal Stickler for 2 years.

Those definitions still might be wrong, but for sure he knows more than I do.

Greetings Cristiano,

My sincerest apologies for misspelling your user name in the last post.

Ludwig Ott (October 24, 1906 in Neumarkt-St. Helena; - October 25, 1985 in Eichstaett) was a Catholic theologian and Medievalist from Bavaria.

After training at the Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Ott was ordained a priest in 1930. He received his doctorate in Munich (1931-1936) under Martin Grabmann and was mentored by him in studying the development of medieval theology. In 1936 he was “extraordinary professor”[citation needed], and in 1941 a full professor of dogmatics at the episcopal philosophical and theological college in Eichstaett. From 1960 to 1962 he was the rector of this Catholic university.

His research centered mostly in the area of dogmatics. With his “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” he produced a standard reference work on dogmatics. The work, popular with both clergy and laity, has been translated into more than ten languages

.

• Wikipedia yeah I seldom do this, but it would have taken a long time to go surfing the net to go and find out information about Dr. Ludwig Ott.

I do not mean to pit one against the other, but I will take the one that has researched dogmatics and has written extensively over them of course meaning no disrespect to Father Hesse.

Oh by the way, I could not find much more on Father Hesse. I am looking for a biography and cannot find one. The one on Wikipedia was too little detailed for my liking. If you have any information about him, I sure would like to learn about him. Thanks.

The reason that I posted the definitions that I did, is because these are the standard definitions that I know that a great percentage of priests and theologians have studied with. I had never heard of the definitions that you posted until I read your post today.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Cristiano]

Greetings Cristiano,

My sincerest apologies for misspelling your user name in the last post.

.

• Wikipedia [yeah I seldom do this, but it would have taken a long time to go surfing the net to go and find out information about Dr. Ludwig Ott.

I do not mean to pit one against the other, but I will take the one that has researched dogmatics and has written extensively over them of course meaning no disrespect to Father Hesse.

Oh by the way, I could not find much more on Father Hesse. I am looking for a biography and cannot find one. The one on Wikipedia was too little detailed for my liking. If you have any information about him, I sure would like to learn about him. Thanks.

The reason that I posted the definitions that I did, is because these are the standard definitions that I know that a great percentage of priests and theologians have studied with. I had never heard of the definitions that you posted until I read your post today.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

I do not have anything by going by the definitions of Ludwig Ott. The only problem is that I still do not have his book and I have not found any other internet definition that would make sense to me. The material on the EWTN web site referring to Ott is simply a list of beliefs associated with the certainty of belief, I did not find anything more than that. Ott’s book is on my list of books to buy; however, considering that I already have Detzinger’s book at this moment this one is low priority until TAN will come out with a hard copy.

Finally I think that by simply reading what you posted, and I do not know if it is verbatim, most of the definitions seem quite consistent.
[/quote]

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I do not have anything by going by the definitions of Ludwig Ott. The only problem is that I still do not have his book and I have not found any other internet definition that would make sense to me. The material on the EWTN web site referring to Ott is simply a list of beliefs associated with the certainty of belief, I did not find anything more than that. Ott’s book is on my list of books to buy; however, considering that I already have Detzinger’s book at this moment this one is low priority until TAN will come out with a hard copy.

Finally I think that by simply reading what you posted, and I do not know if it is verbatim, most of the definitions seem quite consistent.

Greetings Cristiano,

If this post does not make sense, I apologize, I have been up for over 24 hours now with now sleep. :yawn:

I too have Denzinger’s book as well. The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma refer to that book quite a bit. It helps because he writes in Latin quite a bit. Yes what I have written is verbatim from the Introduction of that book. [with probably a few misspelled words]

I am not sure if Tan is going to come out with a hard copy, I have been looking for one myself, but I am content to use paperback. I am on my second copy, the first one fell apart from use.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Rock_Happy]

Greetings Rock Happy,

I will have to agree to disagree with you. The Bible is infallible. Case closed. I notice that you are Christian, which tells me that you may not believe as the Catholic Church teaches.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Our understanding of the bible may change. Translations may change, but the doctrines and the revelation and the truth in the Bible will never change.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

Yes, we disagree. I believe that the Catechism was written by man, based on his imperfect understanding of the Bible. Jewish scholars can’t even agree on the meaning of some of the Hebrew in the original OT. The BBC did a very interesting series on the role of language in religious traditions. Go to any good theological studies program at a good university, and you will find that there is controversy, and that our knowledge improves over time.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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

In short. You could say: The Church is Jesus Christ. We are the branches. Metaphor: a tree, a wineyard.

The Church belongs to Jesus Christ and the Cornerstone is the Pope. Withouth the cornerstion, the Church colapses. Metaphor: a building.

So, I just cannot see how, being the Pope infallible, the Church IS NOT infallible.

 

[Abu]

No document is infallible, only a definition by a Pope or by an Ecumenical Council approved by a Pope – such as the dogma on papal infallibility of Vatican I. The CCC contains infallible dogmas and doctrines.

From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus *Humanae Vitae *(Encyclical) against contraception, and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1);

and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

Through Google, you can easily access Vatican documents especially *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I, and *Lumen Gentium *of Vatican II.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,

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.

My entire response to you was based off of this post that I have quoted above. The Church does not speak exCathedra. Only the Pope does. I shall address the rest of my response in reply to your response to my post. And I will say again Infalibility encompasses more than just the Pope speaking out of exCathedra.

I know I seem to be repeating myself, but it seems you are missing the point.

In short. You could say: The Church is Jesus Christ. We are the branches. Metaphor: a tree, a wineyard.

The Church belongs to Jesus Christ and the Cornerstone is the Pope. Withouth the cornerstion, the Church colapses. Metaphor: a building.

So, I just cannot see how, being the Pope infallible, the Church IS NOT infallible.

Actually the cornerstone of the Church is Jesus Christ. This is said in the Bible. The Pope is his representative on earth, not the actual cornerstone.

I never said that the Church was not infallible. I said that the Church does not speak in exCathedra.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,

My entire response to you was based off of this post that I have quoted above. The Church does not speak exCathedra. Only the Pope does. I shall address the rest of my response in reply to your response to my post. And I will say again Infalibility encompasses more than just the Pope speaking out of exCathedra.

I know I seem to be repeating myself, but it seems you are missing the point.

Actually the cornerstone of the Church is Jesus Christ. This is said in the Bible. The Pope is his representative on earth, not the actual cornerstone.

I never said that the Church was not infallible. I said that the Church does not speak in exCathedra.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

Let’s go to metaphors, but you want detailed masonry. I accept that in some verse Jesus said that the stone the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Ok, let’s accept that that cornerstone is Jesus Christ what is not a nice metaphor, but I accept. But, as an expert masoney man you forgot the Stone upon which Jesus built His Church. You did not forget, you knew it but you decided to forget.

So, if the Pope speaks exCathedra, the Church does not speak ex-Cathedra? Funny definition of Church!

I do think that when we reach this level of discussion is better to stop, and I will stop for the arguments become so ridiculous that lead nowhere. We are forgetting the forest for the trees, stones, ex-Cathedra and so on…

GBY

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Let’s go to metaphors, but you want detailed masonry. I accept that in some verse Jesus said that the stone the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Ok, let’s accept that that cornerstone is Jesus Christ what is not a nice metaphor, but I accept. But, as an expert masoney man you forgot the Stone upon which Jesus built His Church. You did not forget, you knew it but you decided to forget.

So, if the Pope speaks exCathedra, the Church does not speak ex-Cathedra? Funny definition of Church!

I do think that when we reach this level of discussion is better to stop, and I will stop for the arguments become so ridiculous that lead nowhere. We are forgetting the forest for the trees, stones, ex-Cathedra and so on…

GBY

Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,

Nope, I did not forget about Peter being the rock upon which Christ built His Church. Never have I read until I read your post that the Church speaks Ex Cathedra.

The Pope is not the Church. The Pope is a person in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Show me in Church Tradition, Magisterial writings where it says the Church speaks Ex Cathedra.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,

Nope, I did not forget about Peter being the rock upon which Christ built His Church. Never have I read until I read your post that the Church speaks Ex Cathedra.

The Pope is not the Church. The Pope is a person in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Show me in Church Tradition, Magisterial writings where it says the Church speaks Ex Cathedra.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

You are really Anathema Sit!
If anyone says that The Church speaks Ex-Cathedra, Anathema Sit !!!
The Pope speaks ex-Cathedra, ok it is written on the text, litterally. You like to have things written literally. If it falls outside the Church documents, or as you put it, “I ever heard”, if you never heard, anathema sit!
Funny as you did not notice that I said that the Church is Jesus Christ.
Cathedra is a Chair. The Pope when talking solemenly, used to use a big chair. It does not mean that he is infalible when sitting from (“ex”- from) a chair he is infallible, like when he is having lunch.
How would I sit the Church in a Chair? Or in a Cathedra?
Sorry, no patience to go after the books looking for a chair where to sit the Church on.
I think that I cannot explain the meaning of what I said more.
It was not the best of the expressions? I do not know.
But that the Church, when speaking solemnly in terms of moral and law, is infallible, it is. With the chair or without it.
If you did not like it, let’s agree to disagree.

 

[TrueLight]

You are really Anathema Sit!
If anyone says that The Church speaks Ex-Cathedra, Anathema Sit !!!
The Pope speaks ex-Cathedra, ok it is written on the text, litterally. You like to have things written literally. If it falls outside the Church documents, or as you put it, “I ever heard”, if you never heard, anathema sit!
Funny as you did not notice that I said that the Church is Jesus Christ.
Cathedra is a Chair. The Pope when talking solemenly, used to use a big chair. It does not mean that he is infalible when sitting from (“ex”- from) a chair he is infallible, like when he is having lunch.
How would I sit the Church in a Chair? Or in a Cathedra?
Sorry, no patience to go after the books looking for a chair where to sit the Church on.
I think that I cannot explain the meaning of what I said more.
It was not the best of the expressions? I do not know.
But that the Church, when speaking solemnly in terms of moral and law, is infallible, it is. With the chair or without it.
If you did not like it, let’s agree to disagree.

Hi Pfaffenhoffen,

I guess the point is the Pope does not always speak Ex Cathedra. He can also express his opinion about something, and it doesn’t mean everything he says is infallible. And when he is speaking infallibly, he makes it quite clear.

The CCC, second edition is a good summary of Catholic teaching.

However, not all teaching is dogmatic.

And to be honest, during my instruction, I didn’t even focus on the CCC at all, although I read it on my own.

The books I used referred more to the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

You are really Anathema Sit!
If anyone says that The Church speaks Ex-Cathedra, Anathema Sit !!!
The Pope speaks ex-Cathedra, ok it is written on the text, litterally. You like to have things written literally. If it falls outside the Church documents, or as you put it, “I ever heard”, if you never heard, anathema sit!
Funny as you did not notice that I said that the Church is Jesus Christ.
Cathedra is a Chair. The Pope when talking solemenly, used to use a big chair. It does not mean that he is infalible when sitting from (“ex”- from) a chair he is infallible, like when he is having lunch.
How would I sit the Church in a Chair? Or in a Cathedra?
Sorry, no patience to go after the books looking for a chair where to sit the Church on.
I think that I cannot explain the meaning of what I said more.
It was not the best of the expressions? I do not know.
But that the Church, when speaking solemnly in terms of moral and law, is infallible, it is. With the chair or without it.
If you did not like it, let’s agree to disagree.

Greetings Pfaffenhoffen,

Wow what a bunch of drivel. Once again you have misunderstood me. I am glad to see that True Light has gotten my point, which you have clearly not understood.

God bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Hi Pfaffenhoffen,

I guess the point is the Pope does not always speak Ex Cathedra. He can also express his opinion about something, and it doesn’t mean everything he says is infallible. And when he is speaking infallibly, he makes it quite clear.

The CCC, second edition is a good summary of Catholic teaching.

However, not all teaching is dogmatic.

And to be honest, during my instruction, I didn’t even focus on the CCC at all, although I read it on my own.

The books I used referred more to the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Greetings TrueLigtht,

Finally a breath of fresh air with your reply. I do not know why he is hung up on the Church being able to speak Ex Cathedra, and no I did not mean it literally. Obviously you understand that the Church is infalible, while the Pope may not be infallible in all that he does or say.

Thank you for adding a clear voice to this one-sided discussion.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Greetings TrueLigtht,

Finally a breath of fresh air with your reply. I do not know why he is hung up on the Church being able to speak Ex Cathedra, and no I did not mean it literally. Obviously you understand that the Church is infalible, while the Pope may not be infallible in all that he does or say.

Thank you for adding a clear voice to this one-sided discussion.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

Like a good Lady, TrueLight does not like fights, so she came to pour water on the fire like a valliant firefighter.

But, Anathema sit, now you have disoriented me:

“Obviously you understand that the Church is infalible”

. What? The church is always infalible but the Pope is only sometimes?

and

I do not know why he is hung up on the Church being able to speak Ex Cathedra

I am not hung up. I said it and till someone proves the contrary, I will say it. Sorry, I am not going to peruse over 2000 years of history to see who talked about it. Maybe it was me the first to say it. What is wrong? As long as it is not wrong !!!

 

[PiousTemplar]

Hi Pfaffenhoffen,

I guess the point is the Pope does not always speak Ex Cathedra. He can also express his opinion about something, and it doesn’t mean everything he says is infallible. And when he is speaking infallibly, he makes it quite clear.

The CCC, second edition is a good summary of Catholic teaching.

However, not all teaching is dogmatic.

And to be honest, during my instruction, I didn’t even focus on the CCC at all, although I read it on my own.

The books I used referred more to the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Where have you been? Come to CAF more!