Popes and Ex Catheda

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic2003:

That is exactly what Protestants say when they claim to have the authority to judge the Catholic Church against their personal interpretation of Scripture.

This attitude is no more wrong than when traditionalists claim to have the authority to judge Vatican II against their personal interpretation of prior papal and conciliar documents.

Faithful Catholics follow the living Magisterium of the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ, and place their trust in that living Magisterium, relying on Christ’s words, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”

What does that have to do with what he said? It’s common sense that “the fallible must be interpreted in accord with the infallible.” As for USMC:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Catholic2003]

JSmitty2005:

What does that have to do with what he said? It’s common sense that “the fallible must be interpreted in accord with the infallible.”

Faithful Catholics follow the Catechism; they don’t look for excuses to dissent from it.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic2003:

Faithful Catholics follow the Catechism; they don’t look for excuses to dissent from it.

And what did faithful Catholics follow before 1995 (or whenever it was released)? Pope St. Pius X’s Catechism? The Baltimore Catechism? What about the Catechism of the Council of Trent?

 

[Catholic2003]

JSmitty2005:

And what did faithful Catholics follow before 1995 (or whenever it was released)? Pope St. Pius X’s Catechism? The Baltimore Catechism? What about the Catechism of the Council of Trent?

Faithful Catholics have always followed the living Magisterium, which is the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic2003:

Faithful Catholics have always followed the living Magisterium, which is the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.

Indeed. And this living Magisterium cannot teach anything contrary to what it has always taught, correct?

 

[Catholic2003]

JSmitty2005:

Indeed. And this living Magisterium cannot teach anything contrary to what it has always taught, correct?

I’ve never made such a claim. Do you have any references that would support this assertion of yours?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic2003:

I’ve never made such a claim. Do you have any references that would support this assertion of yours?

Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Lesson 12, Question 546:

Can the Church change its laws?

Answer: The Church can, when necessary, change the laws it has itself made, but it cannot change the laws that Christ has made. Neither can the Church change any doctrine of faith or morals.

That’s just the first thing that I found, but I know that there are countless more. I’m sure USMC or someone else could help me out with that.

 

[JSmitty2005]

How about “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught” (2 Thess. 2:15)? The very nature of Tradition is that it is passed on without changing, although it can develop.

 

[Catholic2003]

JSmitty2005:

Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Lesson 12, Question 546:

Can the Church change its laws?

Answer: The Church can, when necessary, change the laws it has itself made, but it cannot change the laws that Christ has made. Neither can the Church change any doctrine of faith or morals.

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that reference!

 

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic2003:

I’ve never made such a claim. Do you have any references that would support this assertion of yours?

This concept should be common sense. To say that doctrines and morals can and do develop is essentially saying that doctrines are relative to time or opinions. If this is true, then they really don’t exist at all except in the contructs of our minds rather than as absolute truths. The same goes for morality. Moral relativism is really a disbelief in morality altogether.

 

[JSmitty2005]

So the conclusion is this: you can’t just take the current Catechism at face value. It can be ambiguous at times. You have to look at what the Church has always taught to ensure that your interpretation of what the Catechism is saying is really in line with the perennial teachings of the Church. The same goes for the Second Vatican Council. It must be interpreted in light of the other 20 councils. It’s not as if one abrogates its predecessors.

 

[Catholic2003]

JSmitty2005:

So the conclusion is this: you can’t just take the current Catechism at face value.

I have to disagree with this conclusion. I think you do great violence to the Baltimore Catechism if you interpret Q 546 as “Catholics can decide for themselves whether magisterial teaching contradicts their private interpretation of historical Church documents, and reject any magisterial teaching that falls short in their judgment.”

I agree with Pope John Paul II’s assessment of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic2003:

I have to disagree with this conclusion. I think you do great violence to the Baltimore Catechism if you interpret Q 546 as “Catholics can decide for themselves whether magisterial teaching contradicts their private interpretation of historical Church documents, and reject any magisterial teaching that falls short in their judgment.”

All that I’m saying is that if you read the current Catechism and come to a different conclusion than you do when you read any previous Church teaching on whatever matter of doctrine or morals, then you’ve misinterpreted the Catechism. Consider the Oath against Modernism that was promulgated by Pope St. Pius X and was sworn by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and seminary professors from 1910 until it was curiously abandoned in 1967 :

“…I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously…I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.”

 

[John_Higgins]

JSmitty2005:

The same goes for the Second Vatican Council. It must be interpreted in light of the other 20 councils. It’s not as if one abrogates its predecessors

Thanks for the link, Smitty. I haven’t seen the “Vatican II was just a pastoral council” argument in a while.

John

 

[Catholic2003]

JSmitty2005:

All that I’m saying is that if you read the current Catechism and come to a different conclusion than you do when you read any previous Church teaching on whatever matter of doctrine or morals, then you’ve misinterpreted the Catechism.

Or you’ve misinterpreted the prior Church document. Obviously, you’ve made a mistake somewhere, and the appropriate response of the faithful Catholic is to continue to study the matter until the mistake becomes apparent. Deciding that the Catechism is in error and then rejecting it is not a legitimate option.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic2003:

Deciding that the Catechism is in error and then rejecting it is not a legitimate option.

And the same goes for previous Church documents.

 

[JSmitty2005]

John Higgins:

Thanks for the link, Smitty. I haven’t seen the “Vatican II was just a pastoral council” argument in a while.

John

Well, that’s how the Fathers of the council understood it, including both popes who oversaw it, so I don’t see why you consider that to be an “argument” rather than a fact.

 

[Catholic2003]

JSmitty2005:

And the same goes for previous Church documents.

Except that non-infallible previous Church documents cannot take priority over the living Magisterium. For example, it is absurd to argue that Catholics cannot charge interest because of Pope Benedict XIV’s Vix Pervenit:

I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.

 

[Catholic2003]

JSmitty2005:

Well, that’s how the Fathers of the council understood it, including both popes who oversaw it, so I don’t see why you consider that to be an “argument” rather than a fact.

The article presents Vatican II as the lone non-infallible teaching swimming in a vast sea of infallible Church teachings. However, the truth is that the vast majority of Church teachings are non-infallible, and that Vatican II in fact holds first rank among these.

I also find it interesting that no one says Pope Paul VI was wrong when he said Vatican II was non-infallible, unlike the many accusations against Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement on the non-ex cathedra status of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Catholic2003:

Except that non-infallible previous Church documents cannot take priority over the living Magisterium. For example, it is absurd to argue that Catholics cannot charge interest because of Pope Benedict XIV’s Vix Pervenit:

Why is that absurd? It makes sense to me. How can usury be a sin in the past but not now? That just doesn’t make sense. I’m beginning to question Catholicism altogether considering that it’s obviously not the Faith that it once was. :ehh: