M
McatholicN
Guest
Are there any other official and inerrant Catholic texts aside from the Catechism and the Bible? Is the Catholic Encyclopedia official?
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
M
McatholicN
Guest
The Catechism is infallible right?
P
promethius
Guest
Which one? A catechism is only inerrant if it is so certified by the Catholic church. Otherwise catechisms are just books.
Sacred Scripture is inerrant. Sacred Tradition is inerrant. And magisterial authority is inerrant. Magisterial authority has produced infallible documents which are without error. The come in multiple forms though.
P
paul_c
Guest
Catholic texts that are worthy of belief have the Impimatur stamp from a bishop. Such texts are declared free of doctrinal error. You will see this on Catholic bibles and the catechism and may other books. The term infallible does not apply to writings.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No.
It is made up of various things…some infallible some not…but it is as Pope John Paul II said “a sure norm” for the Catholic Faith.
And of course the Catechism of the Catholic Church IS the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No it is not an official document of the Church…and also some things can be out of date to begin with…
V
Vince1022
Guest
None of those texts are inerrant.
The Bible and the Catechism are official.
The Catholic Encyclopedia is an excellent resource, but neither inerrant nor official.
V
Vince1022
Guest
No. That’s why there have been and are many catechisms. If the Catechism was infallible, it would never need revision or changes.
P
paul_c
Guest
The Papal Bulls and the proclamations of the Church councils are inerrant.
A
Abu
Guest
There are innumerable “official” documents dealing with discipline, and every document from a bishop is “official”.
As inerrant means “without error” this applies to the Sacred Scriptures only in this way:
“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 the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.” [Vatican II, *Dei Verbum #11].
“Inerrancy can only refer to what the human author, and therefore what the Holy Spirit actually means, that is, what he asserts. Not every biblical paragraph or chapter contains divine assertions….Church infallibility by itself is the ultimate guarantee there can be no mistake identifying the divine truth contained in scripture.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p `154-155].
As far as even dogma and doctrine are concerned, infallibility resides only in the actual definition of the dogma or doctrine (papal or from an Ecumenical Council approved by a Pope) – so the definitions are preserved from all error.
So a “text”, if taken to mean a book (like the CCC) or all of an Encyclical, is not necessarily inerrant.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Ex cathedra defintions…and certain definitions of Ec. Councils etc
T
thistle
Guest
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (infallible and non-infallible) and disciplines, with footnotes referencing Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and other Church documents underpinning the teachings.
Catholics must accept all the teachings in the CCC.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Yes, in light of CCC 1782
T
thistle
Guest
Just to be sure I don’t misunderstand you. You are right we must act according to our conscience but that must be formed in accordance with Church teachings. Anyone who rejects a Church teaching claiming such a teaching would act against their conscience would be committing heresy.
I
Ignatius
Guest
No. Infallible declarations are clearly stated as De Fide.
A
Abu
Guest
At this stage it might be wise to be clear on the scope of papal infallibility.
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) and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.
Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “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 (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
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). (Canon #750.1).
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.
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) and *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis *(Apostolic Epistle) contain infallible doctrinal definitions, to remove all doubt.
Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, 25) reaffirms this teaching: “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 (cf. Lk 22:32) – he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.”
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). (Canon #750.1).
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.
V
Vince1022
Guest
No, I don’t think that is what the Catholic Church teaches.
The Catholic Church teaches that everyone is obliged to follow their conscience.
The Catholic Church does not teach that following one’s conscience in a case that may oppose Church teaching is heresy. See Canon Law 751.
P
paul_c
Guest
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2G.HTM
I don’t think you are reading this correctly.
No one is obliged to become Catholic against their conscience (748 S2)
While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. (752)
It is heresy if you are a Catholic and oppose Church teaching, whether your conscience is in agreement or not. A poorly informed conscience is no excuse to oppose church teaching…
B
Bookcat
Guest
There are of course more than one way a thing can be infallible. It is import too to note that those things in the Catechism which are infallible are not necessarily noted in the CCC that “this is infallible”…prob most often not noted so…
(of course the CCC is a sure norm …so let us live the whole
…not that anyone was saying otherwise…)- Status