Magisterium alone

[Ron_Conte]

What is your positive solution to this “set of errors”?
Please explain how one goes about learning the faith “directly from Tradition.” Thank you.

The solution is threefold, to study and learn from Tradition, from Scripture, and from the Magisterium, including all that is implicit in magisterial documents.

1. Tradition - the Living Tradition includes all that contributes to the holiness of life of the Church, including the deeds of the faithful in imitation of Christ. We all learn the faith partly from Tradition by learning (even without realizing it) from the example of other Christians, and from their words (oral and written) as they explain their understanding of the Faith. Tradition is transmitted by the deeds and words of all the faithful. But the best examples of the transmission of Tradition is found in the words and deeds of the Saints. We can learn from these deeds by learning about the lives of the Saints. And we can learn from their words by studying the writings of the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church.
2. Scripture - all the faithful should be studying the Bible and learning directly from Scripture, understood in the light of Tradition and Magisterium.
3. Magisterium - we should not limit our belief in magisterial teachings to only what is explicitly stated, but rather we should understand the principles and ideas being taught, so that we can draw additional conclusions and apply these teachings to our lives.

 

[crazzeto]

1. Magisterium - we should not limit our belief in magisterial teachings to only what is explicitly stated, but rather we should understand the principles and ideas being taught, so that we can draw additional conclusions and apply these teachings to our lives.

Ok, I had a big long reply for this, but then I realized you weren’t saying what I thought you were saying. OK, yeah I agree… People should basically know what the Magisterial teaching actually is, what it actually says and what it actually doesn’t say.

Basically I think people should, rather than just having a vege cultural understanding of Catholic teaching, they should actually buy a copy of the CCC (yes I know it’s available for free online, but for study it’s better to own one). It’d be terrific even if people got actual spiritual directors, though I"m not sure if the Church, in the state it’s in, is really in a position to offer them to us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

All of the teachings of the Magisterium are found, at least implicitly, in Tradition and Scripture. In one sense, the Magisterium cannot teach anything new, but only what is already in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). In another sense, the Magisterium can teach doctrines that previously were only implicit in the Deposit of Faith; these are new definitions, not previously taught explicitly.

The claim that the Catechism contains all teachings (at least implicitly, I think you meant to say) is the same as claiming that the Catechism is equal to, or in fact replaces, the Deposit of Faith. For if the Catechism contains all teachings, and if the Deposit of Faith contains all teachings, then one does not need both. But how can the Catechism contain all that Scripture contains when only a small portion of Scripture verses are quoted, or even referenced in the Catechism? And the Living Tradition includes the lives of all the faithful, their actual deeds, in so far as they imitate Christ, and the worship life of the Church. The Catechism does not contain the lives of the faithful, nor the Sacraments, nor the Mass, even though it refers to all these things. The mere fact that the Catechsim points us toward Tradition and Scripture, which contain all teachings, is not sufficient to conclude that the Catechism summarizes, or mentions, or references all teachings. If it were, then I could ‘summarize’ all teachings in three words: Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

Examples of explicit teachings of the Magisterium not stated, summarized, or mentioned in the Catechism:

Several magisterial documents were published subsequent to the publication of the Catechism. It would be a serious doctrinal error to speak as if the Catechism is all that one needs to know the teachings of the Magisterium, for then any new documents of the Magisterium would be treated as superfluous.

The teaching that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to Salvation, is not found in the Catechism. This was taught by Unam Sanctam, and by the Fifth Lateran Council.

The second and third Lateran Councils are not mentioned, or even referenced in the Catechism.

A list of Ecumenical Councils (21) is not found in the Catechism.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church contains many teachings not found in the Catechism.

The teaching that the Church has two swords, the spiritual authority and the temporal authority, is not found in the Catechism; it is in Unam Sanctam.

The teaching of the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium, that Mary died and was raised from the death (prior to her Assumption) is not mentioned in the Catechism.

The above list of examples is sufficient to prove that the Catechism, while a useful resource, does not contain or summarize or mention every teaching. The Catechism is not the Deposit of Faith. Anyone whose faith is based solely on the Catechism, and not also on the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium (i.e. other teachings and documents of the Magisterium) is not believing and practicing the whole Catholic faith.

Thank you for providing these examples which I had asked for previously.

 

[thistle]

All of the teachings of the Magisterium are found, at least implicitly, in Tradition and Scripture. In one sense, the Magisterium cannot teach anything new, but only what is already in the Deposit of Faith (Tradition and Scripture). In another sense, the Magisterium can teach doctrines that previously were only implicit in the Deposit of Faith; these are new definitions, not previously taught explicitly.

The claim that the Catechism contains all teachings (at least implicitly, I think you meant to say) is the same as claiming that the Catechism is equal to, or in fact replaces, the Deposit of Faith. For if the Catechism contains all teachings, and if the Deposit of Faith contains all teachings, then one does not need both. But how can the Catechism contain all that Scripture contains when only a small portion of Scripture verses are quoted, or even referenced in the Catechism? And the Living Tradition includes the lives of all the faithful, their actual deeds, in so far as they imitate Christ, and the worship life of the Church. The Catechism does not contain the lives of the faithful, nor the Sacraments, nor the Mass, even though it refers to all these things. The mere fact that the Catechsim points us toward Tradition and Scripture, which contain all teachings, is not sufficient to conclude that the Catechism summarizes, or mentions, or references all teachings. If it were, then I could ‘summarize’ all teachings in three words: Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

Examples of explicit teachings of the Magisterium not stated, summarized, or mentioned in the Catechism:

Several magisterial documents were published subsequent to the publication of the Catechism. It would be a serious doctrinal error to speak as if the Catechism is all that one needs to know the teachings of the Magisterium, for then any new documents of the Magisterium would be treated as superfluous.

The teaching that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to Salvation, is not found in the Catechism. This was taught by Unam Sanctam, and by the Fifth Lateran Council.

(It seems to me this is covered by CCC 880-896)

The second and third Lateran Councils are not mentioned, or even referenced in the Catechism.

(how is this a missing teaching?)

A list of Ecumenical Councils (21) is not found in the Catechism.

(how is this a missing teaching)

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church contains many teachings not found in the Catechism.

(for example, what teachings?)

The teaching that the Church has two swords, the spiritual authority and the temporal authority, is not found in the Catechism; it is in Unam Sanctam.

(I read Unam Sanctam. What does this teaching mean?)

The teaching of the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium, that Mary died and was raised from the death (prior to her Assumption) is not mentioned in the Catechism.

(it is neither an infallible nor a non-infallible teaching that Mary died prior to her Assumption. Catholics are free to believe she died or did not die before her Assumption)

The above list of examples is sufficient to prove that the Catechism, while a useful resource, does not contain or summarize or mention every teaching. The Catechism is not the Deposit of Faith. Anyone whose faith is based solely on the Catechism, and not also on the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium (i.e. other teachings and documents of the Magisterium) is not believing and practicing the whole Catholic faith.

 

[Ron_Conte]

it is neither an infallible nor a non-infallible teaching that Mary died prior to her Assumption. Catholics are free to believe she died or did not die before her Assumption

The teaching that Mary died and was raised from the dead is taught in an Apostolic Constitution. It is not solemnly defined, so it is not an infallible teaching. However, how can anyone claim that a teaching found in an Apostolic Constitution is still an open question? It is a teaching in a magisterial document on a matter of faith – that Mary died, just as Christ died, even though she did not deserve death as a punishment for sin, and that Mary was raised from the dead by Christ, prior to her Assumption.

The Catechism is a useful resource for the faithful. And in one sense, it is a summary of Catholic teaching. But it is not a summary in the sense that every teaching is summarized within its pages. Only the sum total of all the teachings of Tradition and Scripture can be said to include every teaching. For this is the Deposit of Faith. Treating the Catechism as the one source that contains all teachings raises the Catechism to the status of the Deposit of Divine Revelation, and in effect deprecates Tradition and Scripture. This leads to the error of solus Catechismus (catechism alone) which I have noticed in some of my fellow Catholics.

But I ask those Catholics who rely almost entirely and almost exclusively on the Catchism for all that they believe:

what did you believe before the Catechism was published?
do you think that the Catholic faith did not exist before the Catechism?
or do you think that the Catholic faith was inexcessible before the Catechism?
what if the Catechism was never written? What would you believe?

As for me, I learned the Catholic faith quite well **before **the Catechism, and when it was published, nothing in the Catechism contradicted anything I had learned. I find the Catechism to be useful, but I don’t find it to be suitable to replace Tradition and Scripture as the foundation of truth in the Church. Catechism worship is idolatry.

 

[thistle]

The teaching that Mary died and was raised from the dead is taught in an Apostolic Constitution. It is not solemnly defined, so it is not an infallible teaching. However, how can anyone claim that a teaching found in an Apostolic Constitution is still an open question? It is a teaching in a magisterial document on a matter of faith – that Mary died, just as Christ died, even though she did not deserve death as a punishment for sin, and that Mary was raised from the dead by Christ, prior to her Assumption.

The Catechism is a useful resource for the faithful. And in one sense, it is a summary of Catholic teaching. But it is not a summary in the sense that every teaching is summarized within its pages. Only the sum total of all the teachings of Tradition and Scripture can be said to include every teaching. For this is the Deposit of Faith. Treating the Catechism as the one source that contains all teachings raises the Catechism to the status of the Deposit of Divine Revelation, and in effect deprecates Tradition and Scripture. This leads to the error of solus Catechismus (catechism alone) which I have noticed in some of my fellow Catholics.

But I ask those Catholics who rely almost entirely and almost exclusively on the Catchism for all that they believe:

what did you believe before the Catechism was published?
do you think that the Catholic faith did not exist before the Catechism?
or do you think that the Catholic faith was inexcessible before the Catechism?
what if the Catechism was never written? What would you believe?

As for me, I learned the Catholic faith quite well **before **the Catechism, and when it was published, nothing in the Catechism contradicted anything I had learned. I find the Catechism to be useful, but I don’t find it to be suitable to replace Tradition and Scripture as the foundation of truth in the Church. Catechism worship is idolatry.

In MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII does not say Mary died before her Assumption. All his references to her death are those beliefs of two or three Church Fathers. In fact many Church Fathers did not believe Mary died first although I personally believe she died.
The words of Pope Pius XII are that Mary “completed the course of her earthly life”. If he was to teach she died then he would have said “died”. However, his words are carefully chosen with his expression allowing for her death or no death before she was assumed. Catholics are free to believe either. We are not bound to believe she died first.

By the way your implication that Catholics who regularly look to the CCC for the teachings of the Church are “worshipping” the CCC and “committing idolatry” is an insult to all of us.
You owe everyone an apology for such a remark.

 

[guanophore]

Sure, I have had a spiritual journey through several Protestant communities including the no creeds but Christ thinking. I think the non-denominational churches and independent Baptist churches tend to have a "no creeds but Christ" mentality which is a creed in itself… which is quite a deficient creed to properly interpret the Scriptures.

This is a very interesting statement to make. Yet, when Catholics point out that our Reformed brethren embrace a deficient creed and therefore do not properly interpret the scriptures, you balk at that!

 

[Ron_Conte]

In MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII does not say Mary died before her Assumption. All his references to her death are those beliefs of two or three Church Fathers. In fact many Church Fathers did not believe Mary died first although I personally believe she died.
The words of Pope Pius XII are that Mary “completed the course of her earthly life”. If he was to teach she died then he would have said “died”. However, his words are carefully chosen with his expression allowing for her death or no death before she was assumed. Catholics are free to believe either. We are not bound to believe she died first.

Here is Pope John Paul II on the subject. He states that the opinion that she did not die goes back only to the 17th century: “However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory.” And he himself teaches that Mary died: “The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997_en.html
However, this is a non-infallible teaching. Also, the Catholic Church in the East celebrates the death of the Virgin Mary, her Dormition, prior to celebrating her Assumption, and the Church does not base her liturgical celebrations on mere theological opinion, but on teachings.

By the way your implication that Catholics who regularly look to the CCC for the teachings of the Church are “worshipping” the CCC and “committing idolatry” is an insult to all of us.
You owe everyone an apology for such a remark.

The CCC is a useful resource. But some Catholics sin by treating the CCC as if every teaching is found therein, and as if no other source is needed. And some Catholics even sin by abandoning Tradition and Scripture, believing solely what is in the Catechism. This exaltation of the Catechism is a type of false worship. The Catechism must be given its proper place in the spiritual life of the Church, which is as one of many resources for learning the Faith. Whoever bases his or her knowledge of the Faith solely on the Catechism commits a sin against God who is Truth, and in effect abandons Tradition, Scripture, and even the Magisterium.

[John]
{21:25} Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written.

This saying about the deeds of Jesus can also be applied to the written sources of the Faith in the Church. First, the Faith cannot be entirely written down; it is full of mysteries beyond complete human comprehension. Second, if we attempted to write it all down, the world itself would not be able to contain all the books that would be written. Third, no book the size of the Catechism could contain all of the teaching of Tradition, and Scripture, and the Magisterium.

Those who attempt to base their faith solely, or even mainly, on the Catechism have gone astray.

 

[thistle]

Here is Pope John Paul II on the subject. He states that the opinion that she did not die goes back only to the 17th century: “However, this opinion was unknown until the 17th century, whereas a common tradition actually exists which sees Mary’s death as her entry into heavenly glory.” And he himself teaches that Mary died: “The experience of death personally enriched the Blessed Virgin: by undergoing mankind’s common destiny, she can more effectively exercise her spiritual motherhood towards those approaching the last moment of their life.”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1997/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_25061997_en.html
However, this is a non-infallible teaching. Also, the Catholic Church in the East celebrates the death of the Virgin Mary, her Dormition, prior to celebrating her Assumption, and the Church does not base her liturgical celebrations on mere theological opinion, but on teachings.

The CCC is a useful resource. But some Catholics sin by treating the CCC as if every teaching is found therein, and as if no other source is needed. And some Catholics even sin by abandoning Tradition and Scripture, believing solely what is in the Catechism. This exaltation of the Catechism is a type of false worship. The Catechism must be given its proper place in the spiritual life of the Church, which is as one of many resources for learning the Faith. Whoever bases his or her knowledge of the Faith solely on the Catechism commits a sin against God who is Truth, and in effect abandons Tradition, Scripture, and even the Magisterium.

[John]
{21:25} Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written.

This saying about the deeds of Jesus can also be applied to the written sources of the Faith in the Church. First, the Faith cannot be entirely written down; it is full of mysteries beyond complete human comprehension. Second, if we attempted to write it all down, the world itself would not be able to contain all the books that would be written. Third, no book the size of the Catechism could contain all of the teaching of Tradition, and Scripture, and the Magisterium.

Those who attempt to base their faith solely, or even mainly, on the Catechism have gone astray.

Please name those Catholics you refer to. Otherwise keep your mouth shut. You are implying I am one and also others in these forums but you don’t have the courage to say that because that indeed would be a sin although by implication you have anyway crossed the line.
Nobody has claimed the CCC is the only book or document to be read and what idiot would say their faith is based solely or mainly on the CCC. Again you are implying something without any basis. Please refer to any post from me or another poster supporting your outrageous claim.
I had never heard of the CCC when I became a Catholic.
I am saying that all teachings of the Church can be found summarised in the CCC ( agood centralised place to find a summary of the Church’s teachings) and the source of these teachings is referenced in the footnotes ( so that a reader can then check out a fuller explanation to the teachings in the source documents) and these teachings ARE based on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium. I really don’t know how you can say or imply that the teachings in the CCC are not based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium. What else would they be based on?

On Mary, even though I believe she died, the Church does NOT teach that she died. The personal views of a Pope or Bishop or whoever does not constitute a teaching of the Church.

 

[Roman_Army]

I have seen this mistake, plus I have also encountered the opposite mistake. The opposite mistake being that they believe that absolutely nothing taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium and also taught by the Pope definitively in his ordinary magisterium is infallible. So, they might regard the 2 marian dogmas solemnly defined by Pius IX and Pius XII as infallible and binding, but they might not regard the non-solemn definitive teachings against contraception, euthanasia, invitro fertilization, artificial insemination, etc. as infallible and binding. They also might not regard the teaching of the total inerrancy of scripture as infallible, etc. They might also reject the idea that the canonization of a specific Saint is infallible. I’ve had to debate several people who followed this extremely narrow view of the infallibility of the Magisterium.

I’ve also encountered two other contradictory mistakes. On the one side there are those who regard only the pre-Vatican II magisterial teachings as authoritative. Then on the other side there are those who regard only the Post-Vatican II magisterial teachings as authoritative. They make no attempt to harmonize past and present teachings and put them in opposition to each other. So, for example, if one used the classic phrase “outside the Church there is no salvation,” the post-Vatican II people would jump on that as rigid and in error, without bothering to read between the lines and seeing how it conforms to Vatican II teachings. If one said “salvation can be found outside the visible Church” the other pre-Vatican II people will jump on it and label it as relativism or modernism without bothering to understand what is meant by it. The same can be said about the Church’s teachings concerning the Old Covenant with the Jews. On the one hand one can and must say that the Old Covenant was made void and superseded by the New Covenant, and on the other hand one can and must say that the Old Covenant is incorporated in the New Covenant. Both sides will have issue with this.

 

[Roman_Army]

Also, certainly, there are also those that assume that just because a teaching is not infallible, then it means one is free to reject it entirely to subscribe to their own personal opinion. They might also assume that non-infallible teachings are automatically erroneous. Actually, one is still bound to follow non-infallible teachings religiously and they can actually be correct and they can also be taught definitively in the future. These non-infallible teachings are taught non-definitively by the ordinary magisterium of a particular bishop, local group of bishops, or the Pope. They are more than just mere personal opinion.

 

[RB2]

The CCC is a useful resource. But some Catholics sin by treating the CCC as if every teaching is found therein, and as if no other source is needed. And some Catholics even sin by abandoning Tradition and Scripture, believing solely what is in the Catechism. This exaltation of the Catechism is a type of false worship. The Catechism must be given its proper place in the spiritual life of the Church, which is as one of many resources for learning the Faith. Whoever bases his or her knowledge of the Faith solely on the Catechism commits a sin against God who is Truth, and in effect abandons Tradition, Scripture, and even the Magisterium.

I think this whole threads purpose is for the enjoyment of beating a dead horse. However, if one becomes quite familar and conversant with
the catechism (some 600-700 pages of dense material)they are being an informed and thoughtful Catholic and probably equipped better than 99% of other Catholics… However, are they sinning until they expand their horizons to encyclicals and other Church documents— definetly not!

If Ron Conte is talking about a twittering bobble head or one who takes a legalistic view of the catechism looking for moral twists and loopholes, then of course he’d be correct. But I find it strangely odd to be basing a thread off of a potential conflicted personality type as if it extended to a generality. However, to be completely fair this and other Christian forums, Catholic and Anti-Catholics, do frequently make doctrinal arguments based ‘legally’ on insufficient points/markers of knowledge . But that is ‘forum’ behavior. I couldnt make a generalization to Catholics
and their faith being a legalistic concept arising from the Catechism and further I can’t even imagine what errors would arise from such a confilicted personality type…the Catechism is a very good book , I would be loathe to admit Protestant type ‘reasoning’ arising from the reading of it.

Unequivocally, this thread and the point its making is very obtuse.