Ok. What does "poorly catechized" mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scowler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The word “infallible” probably is a poor choice of word.

The Catechism does set forth new doctrines or new dogmas, but rather attempts to explain Church teachings.

And the Catechism is printed in different languages.
 
MonteRCMS said:
The word “infallible” probably is a poor choice of word.
Click to expand...
That is not my fault. When I was asking specific questions, the answer always was: “it is all there in the catechism”. Example: I was asking for the list of the biblical verses which must be accepted literally (as opposed to allegorically) I never got a direct answer. It is there in the catechism. All the “truths” what Catholicism teaches are in the catechism (dogmas, disciplines, etc.).

It is also asserted that the ordinary and the extraordinary magisterium is the ultimate, infallible authority. But we all know that the different editions of the catechism are not the same, there are very important differences. So it is a logical question: “which version contains the infallible teachings”.
 
The notion of “infallibility” is totally unique in and of itself.

In the past hundred years, the Church has spoken twice with the strength of infallibility and both had to do with teachings on Mary.

You can discuss and debate what is written in any of our catechisms. The words in these books do not merit the descriptor: “infallible”.

There are authors and there are staff writers and there are translators and when you re-issue a particular printing of any catechism, you may encounter changes … but an infallible doctrine or dogma … may have new words, but the essence of the teaching will remain infallible.

But teachings such as the few on Mary are described as infallible.

We just do not use the word “infallible” casually … to explain or clarify what is written in one book or another.

I would refer, again, to one of Karl Keating’s books:


There are many good and excellent books and good and excellent writers.

But the idea of “infallible” does not hinge on the specific choice of words found in any specific book, so that one book might be infallible and another might not be infallible.

Scroll down to the article from U.S. Catholic on infallible teachings … which are those that are “ex cathedra”.
 
Last edited:
Although I mainly agree, I’m not sure (only) twice in the last 100 years is accurate. I thought the notion of no women priests was pretty much put to bed with St. John Paul II document which likewise was within the last 100 years. Am I misunderstanding that?

Blessings,
Stephie
 
The issue of no woman priests goes back to the beginning of the Catholic Church and is not a new teaching.
 

excerpt:

There is no set list of ex cathedra teachings, but that’s because there are only two, and both are about Mary: her Immaculate Conception (declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and grandfathered in after the First Vatican Council’s declaration of papal infallibility in 1870) and her bodily Assumption into heaven (declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950).
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
The issue of no woman priests goes back to the beginning of the Catholic Church and is not a new teaching.
Click to expand...
I do realize the early nature. I thought I heard that the one JP2 encyclical infallibly declared it. That’s why I was looking for clarification.

Thanks,
Stephie
 
Last edited:
Scowler said:
So the Geocentric view was NOT the only one heresy he maintained? That makes me feel soooo good about his burning.
Click to expand...
I’m waiting for your next post with bated breath: will you try the “when did you stop beating your wife” routine? C’mon … you’re the one who brought it up – in error! – and now you’re beating me with it? :roll_eyes:
Scowler said:
You can’t be serious. The church abandoned the literal creation of Adam from dirt in 400 AD? Even today the church merely allows the acceptance of evolution but does not insist on it. And that is only allowed if you accept the idea of “directed” evolution.
Click to expand...
Totally serious. The Church allows a perspective that views the creation accounts as allegories, and it allows a perspective that insists it’s real, life, historical narrative. (The reason for that is that the Church doesn’t teach either – rather, it teaches what the accounts are telling us about salvation history: God created everything from nothing, everything God created was good, God created humanity in his ‘image and likeness’.)
Scowler said:
40.png
Gorgias:
The Baltimore Catechism isn’t produced by the “ordinary magisterium”.
Click to expand...
Which version of the catechism is infallible?
Click to expand...
The version of the Catechism that is produced by the universal Church for use by all Catholics is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. While not an ‘infallible’ document itself (it doesn’t meet the requirements for infallibility), it is nevertheless an authoritative record of the infallible teachings of the Church.

Glad I could help you find it. 😉
 
StephieNorthCo said:
I do realize the early nature. I thought I heard that the one JP2 encyclical infallibly declared it. That’s why I was looking for clarification.
Click to expand...
It depends on who you ask. One could say that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis merely reaffirmed the perennial teaching of the Church. This is essential the same thing as happened with Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae. None of the three encyclicals established new teachings, but rather reaffirmed for new generations what had always been held.

Some do hold that St John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis as infallible teaching primarily because he stated
I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
(emphasis added)
Click to expand...
The bolded part about “definitively held” is usually associated with a pronouncement declared via the universal magisterium. I cannot remember what document Cardinal Ratzinger had written that lays out the levels of magisterial teaching (perhaps Donum Veritatis). All of my theology professors have held that an all male priesthood is a matter of doctrine that cannot be changed or disagreed with (i.e. one must give submissions of faith). I am thinking that the all male priesthood is de fide tenenda and several documents from the CDF do recognize it as an infallible, by not ex cathedra, statement.
 
I understand what you are saying about the all male priesthood and i am not suggesting differently but as far as the statement goes, He (JP2) wasn’t a pope at the time of the document and therefore could not have made an infallible statement. At least that is what I was taught…
 
Blessedwithfive said:
I understand what you are saying about the all male priesthood and i am not suggesting differently but as far as the statement goes, He (JP2) wasn’t a pope at the time of the document and therefore could not have made an infallible statement. At least that is what I was taught…
Click to expand...
Unfortunately someone misinformed you as Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was promulgated on May 22, 1994.

The very last line of the encyclical (two sentences after the above quote) says:
From the Vatican, on May 22, the Solemnity of Pentecost, in the year 1994, the sixteenth of my Pontificate.
Click to expand...
I think after 16 years he had a pretty good claim to the papacy. 😉

Now some might dispute Cardinal Ratzinger’s later affirmation of it’s infallibly in the follow up CDF documents as he was not yet Pope, but John Paul II gave Cardinal Ratzinger, as the Prefect for the CDF, his approval on the response to the dubia on the teaching. You can read the official response here.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...9951028_commento-dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the correction. For some reason, I was under the impression he was not a pope at the time of the statement. I stand corrected…
 
Usige said:
Cardinal Ratzinger’s later affirmation of it’s infallibly in the follow up CDF documents as he was not yet Pope, but John Paul II gave Cardinal Ratzinger, as the Prefect for the CDF, his approval on the response to the dubia on the teaching
Click to expand...
Aah… I wondered where that thought originated! Since they can’t assault the claim that the assertion in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an exercise in infallibility, then attempt to claim that the affirmation of the infallible nature is itself not infallible. Well… duh! 😉

(It just confuses matters that the person at the helm at the time of the affirmation was later raised to the papacy…!)
 
  1. Define immaculate conception
  2. Explain “descended into hell”
 
Me getting the first one wrong (and a fellow Catholic showing me I was wrong and what was right) was a turning point for me that I needed to learn my faith 🤯
 
Last edited:
Immaculate Conception: Mary being preserved from original sin since the time of her conception
descended into hell: saved the righteous who died before Him (eg Abraham) and took them to Heaven. Is that about right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top