Quick question about The Catechism of the Catholic Church

[Elf01]

As many and He needed.

I want a specific number.

 

[annad347]

I want a specific number.

Yiu have a specific number…as many as God needed to breath for you to have what He needs you to have… and isnt it amazing it how perfect it works

What ever words you need from God, to help you in any way you need Him to help you is always available with the power of the Holy Spirit to guide you.

But if you need an exact number I couldnt give it to you because according to Jonn even the whole world would not have room for the books if all Jesus did was written. John 21:25… so right now we have as many as God needs us to have.

 

[Montrose]

Yiu have a specific number…as many as God needed to breath for you to have what He needs you to have… and isnt it amazing it how perfect it works

What ever words you need from God, to help you in any way you need Him to help you is always available with the power of the Holy Spirit to guide you.

But if you need an exact number I couldnt give it to you because according to Jonn even the whole world would not have room for the books if all Jesus did was written. John 21:25… so right now we have as many as God needs us to have.

The number is 73.

 

[Gorgias]

The other source is Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t teach anything that Jesus didn’t teach.

Who are the people in the Magisterium?

The “magisterium” isn’t people, as such. It means “the teaching authority of the Church.” There are people who exercise that authority: that would be the pope and the college of bishops, acting together to define a teaching, or the pope himself (under certain conditions).

Who is the Church?

I would say that the question can be answered in a variety of ways, depending on how you phrase the question. If the question is “who is within the boundaries of the ‘visible’ Church?”, then the answer is “the Catholic faithful”. We are related to those outside these visible boundaries in a variety of ways. We are in an imperfect communion with those who call themselves by the name ‘Christian’ but who do not share in the fullness of the truth.

Then when when I say you believe if it’s not from the Catholic Church it’s a lie… You say that’s not what you’re saying, if that’s exactly what your saying?

I’m saying that, if someone introduces a doctrine that’s in conflict with the Catholic Church, then they’re in error. Not “lying”, as such, since that’s a value judgment. Objectively speaking, though, they’re teaching erroneous doctrine on their own initiative.

annad347:

so right now we have as many as God needs us to have.

The number is 73.

And the reason that it’s “73” is that Jesus authorized the apostles to teach, and the apostles set the canon of the Bible as such. So, the dynamic isn’t “as many as God needs us to have”, so much as it is "as many as the Church decided were needed to hand on the story of Jesus.

Remember – the Bible doesn’t “teach” as such, and it even makes that clear: Scripture is valuable for the teaching of Christ’s message. It’s kinda like saying “does your math book teach?” and the answer is “of course not! It’s a tool that the teacher uses as a resource in his teaching efforts!”

 

[annad347]

The number is 73.

Then that is the number God wants you to have… within that number you can find the answers God needs you to have. So you are filled with His Spirit to follow His will.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t teach anything that Jesus didn’t teach

Never said He did, considering they are One. Jesus also taught us that the Holy Spirit will be our guide to God’s Truth, will help us remember all He taught and

Objectively speaking, though, they’re teaching erroneous doctrine on their own initiative.

So if it’s not from the Catholic church then it’s wrong… not a lie just wrong…okay.

It’s kinda like saying “does your math book teach?” and the answer is “of course not! It’s a tool that the teacher uses as a resource in his teaching efforts!”

What if your teacher is wrong, wouldn’t you go to the book to learn what is correct… who’s teaching you then?

Scripture was given to us for a reason.

 

[Gorgias]

Montrose:

The number is 73.

Then that is the number God wants you to have…

I’m ok with that, but that doesn’t mean “God wanted 73 books, so He made it happen that the apostles decided on 73 books.” Remember, in Mt 16:19, it isn’t “what is bound in heaven, you shall bind on earth.” Rather, it works the other way – “what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.” Jesus is promising that the exercise of the authority of the apostles is what causes things to be bound/loosed not only on earth, but in heaven as well.

So, what we get is “the Church decided that the written form of Jesus’ Word is found in 73 books, and therefore… it is!”

within that number you can find the answers God needs you to have.

Again: the Bible isn’t the rule of faith; the teaching of the apostles is.

So if it’s not from the Catholic church then it’s wrong… not a lie just wrong…okay.

Again: not what I’m saying. Rather, it’s “if it conflicts with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, it’s erroneous.” If there’s no conflict, then we would look at it and say, “well… that’s your opinion.”

What if your teacher is wrong

That’s the whole point – and, it seems, it’s the mistaken perspective upon which your argument is based. Jesus promised that the Church He founded would not get it wrong. So, when you say “what if the Catholic Church teaches erroneous doctrine”, you’re proposing an impossibility – because Jesus promised that it wouldn’t!

Scripture was given to us for a reason.

The Church gave us the Bible for a reason. That reason was not to be our sole rule of faith – or even our rule of faith at all!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Rather, it’s “if it conflicts with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, it’s erroneous.”

Erroneous on what level? For the culture and the time, or for all time? Anyway, I disagree.

In addition to that, there have been some doctrines of the Catholic Church which have been wrong. They are routinely debated here on CAF. The Catholic apologists do “mental gymnastics” (a term they so often use as a weapon) to turn the erroneous doctrines of the past into a twisted hermeneutic of continuity (another stupid term) as it relates to development of doctrine (a seemingly contrived term).

Some of the clergy admit of the mistakes of the past, including popes. Until everyone is on board it will be difficult to move forward.

 

[Gorgias]

Erroneous on what level? For the culture and the time, or for all time?

If it’s a doctrine, then it doesn’t depend on “cultures and times”; it is true “for all time”, as you put it.

Anyway, I disagree.

Fair enough. Umm, by the way… where did Jesus give you the authority to declare doctrine for the Church? I can show you where He gave that authority to Peter…

In addition to that, there have been some doctrines of the Catholic Church which have been wrong.

Umm… namely? One example, even, please?

The Catholic apologists do “mental gymnastics” (a term they so often use as a weapon) to turn the erroneous doctrines of the past into a twisted hermeneutic of continuity (another stupid term) as it relates to development of doctrine (a seemingly contrived term).

Wow… tell us how you really feel…!

Some of the clergy admit of the mistakes of the past, including popes.

Stunning claim. Really. OK, then: please show us where popes have “admitted mistakes of the past” in terms of doctrine.

(On the other hand, “prudential judgment” is neither doctrinal nor infallible, so it can be in error. However, that’s not what you’re claiming here, so I’d appreciate you demonstrating that your assertion is valid. Thanks!)

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Umm… namely? One example, even, please?

One that may relate the most to your conversation with @annad347 is “outside the Church there is no salvation”. Which is the one that is probably most responsible for the popes having to give vague apologies.

Stunning claim. Really. OK, then: please show us where popes have “admitted mistakes of the past” in terms of doctrine.

It shouldn’t be a stunner. Although, apparently it was when JPll did it.

You’d have to read between the lines of these apologies to get to the doctrinal parts. But it is fairly obvious that apologizes are not needed for individual acts hundreds of years later if they were not prompted by something more substantial as it relates to the teaching authority of the Church itself, like a teaching which was widely understood a certain way.

Like I said, some people can do all the explaining they want in order to twist some teachings of the past into something it was not. Anyone can research this stuff themselves and see.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

so I’d appreciate you demonstrating that your assertion is valid. Thanks!)

I’ll address this ^ separately because it’s doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with my “assertion”.

The claim that the Church makes about teaching authority and infallibility are claims that require faith. They cannot be proven “valid” beyond the faith. Therefore, in the context of these few posts, it seems silly for you to ask for validity. Not that you would accept any demonstration of validity anyway.

 

[Gorgias]

One that may relate the most to your conversation with @annad347 is “outside the Church there is no salvation”.

That hasn’t been repudiated.

Which is the one that is probably most responsible for the popes having to give vague apologies.

They might have explained what it really means, but they haven’t “apologized” for it.

It shouldn’t be a stunner. Although, apparently it was when JPll did it.

Wait – are you talking about the Galileo kerfuffle? JPII didn’t apologize for doctrine, but for how the situation went down.

You’d have to read between the lines of these apologies to get to the doctrinal parts.

OK. Show me, then, how you “read between the lines” to reach the notion that JPII’s discussion of the Galileo affair changed doctrine?

But it is fairly obvious that apologizes are not needed for individual acts hundreds of years later if they were not prompted by something more substantial as it relates to the teaching authority of the Church itself, like a teaching which was widely understood a certain way.

And yet, the doctrinal teaching hasn’t changed.

Therefore, in the context of these few posts, it seems silly for you to ask for validity.

You’re claiming that the Church has changed doctrine; I’m distinguishing between ‘doctrine’ and non-doctrinal ‘prudential judgment’; the latter may change and is not subject to infallibility or immutability. So, I’m still asking you to demonstrate your claim (which isn’t ‘silly’, but which is a reasonable response to an unsubstantiated claim!). At best, all you’ve said is "well… that’s how I read it, between the lines.

Not that you would accept any demonstration of validity anyway.

Sure I would, if it were a reasonable argument. However, you know that, if I find it an unreasonable argument, I’m likely to demonstrate how it doesn’t stand up to reason.

Your choice – defend your assertion or abandon it.

 

[Elf01]

Yiu have a specific number…as many as God needed to breath for you to have what He needs you to have… and isnt it amazing it how perfect it works

That’s not a specific number. I’m looking for something along the lines of 50, but I think you know that.

Is the book of Mormon inspired? The Gospel of Thomas? The Didiache? The Koran?

 

[Montrose]

Is the book of Mormon inspired? The Gospel of Thomas? The Didiache? The Koran?

No to all of them.
However, the Church does refer to The Didache to support some teachings. It could be considered the first catechism.

 

[annad347]

Jesus is promising that the exercise of the authority of the apostles is what causes things to be bound/loosed not only on earth, but in heaven as well.

then why deny the power of the Holy Spirit?

Again: the Bible isn’t the rule of faith; the teaching of the apostles is.

You make it sound as if one is separate from the other. Aren’t the teachings of Apostles in the Bible? Can I not learn what the Apostles taught about Jesus in the Bible?

Again: not what I’m saying. Rather, it’s “if it conflicts with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, it’s erroneous.” If there’s no conflict, then we would look at it and say, “well… that’s your opinion.”

Please explain… If what is said conflicts with the Catholic Church it is erroneous, wrong, incorrect… if there is no conflict with the Catholic Church, what is said is just someone’s opinion?

Is that a Typo, did you mean to say if it is in conflict?

So, when you say “what if the Catholic Church teaches erroneous doctrine”, you’re proposing an impossibility – because Jesus promised that it wouldn’t!

You would respond to the first part of that statement but ignore the second… I said the teacher… is the Church the teacher?

Wouldn’t this part of scripture be part of their teaching?

2 Timothy 3 (14-17) But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Are they not telling us to use the “tools” God gave us to insure we are being taught what the Apostles wanted us to learn?

Which would meant the “tool” your math teacher is using to teach… the big one, the one all us kids wanted because it had all the answers… it’s called the Bible.

The Church gave us the Bible for a reason. That reason was not to be our sole rule of faith – or even our rule of faith at all!

Who is the Church?

Faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the Word of Christ.

The Bible doesn’t give me faith in God, it gives me the Word of God, which helps build my faith. It is my main source of teaching me about God, with the Holy Spirit… so it’s not my only source, but if I had only one choice, other than God Almighty, in “tools” to help me understand God… it would be my first.

… Sure, I would, if it were a reasonable argument.

What do you consider a reasonable argument (are rather discussion)?

 

[annad347]

That’s not a specific number. I’m looking for something along the lines of 50, but I think you know that.

Actually I thought you were looking for number 73… which is why I said you have as many books as God knows you need.

Is the book of Mormon inspired? The Gospel of Thomas? The Didiache? The Koran?

never read any of those books so I wouldn’t know… never read the Torah either.

I have read the Old Testament but I don’t think that’s the same as reading the Torah.

 

[Elf01]

never read any of those books so I wouldn’t know… never read the Torah either.

So you don’t know what’s in the Bible then.

So how can you know you’re following it?

 

[annad347]

So you don’t know what’s in the Bible then.

This is… what I read most of the time… as much as God needs me to have. I also have several hard copies of different Bibles… does that help?

I even opened the CCC website someone was kind to give me with an index.

Told you I wasnt sure if reading The Old Testament was the same as reading the Torah.

 

[Elf01]

This is… what I read most of the time… as much as God needs me to have. I also have several hard copies of different Bibles… does that help?

Could something be Scripture for you and not for me or vice versa?

 

[annad347]

Could something be Scripture for you and not for me or vice versa?

I dont know… what do you considere Scripture?

 

[Montrose]

I dont know… what do you considere Scripture?

The 73 books in the Bible.