Quick question about The Catechism of the Catholic Church

[annad347]

In this example we can see how my interpretation of the Bible contrasts with Church teaching, even though I do not present the Church’s interpretation of scripture.

But in this example, the church’s interpretation came from Scripture. The church is teaching what it means for a wife to be obedient from Scripture. The church wouldn’t teach something that’s not in Scripture, when the teaching is in Scripture.

For example: The church wouldn’t tell a wife, do as your husband commands without question, allow him to do whatever he wants to you and your children even if it’s something that is harmful, or against God.

That’s what I mean the church wouldn’t teach something that is outside the Bible.

Did Jesus tell the apostles, “here’s this book; give it to folks and ask them to read it and use it as their rule of faith”? Or, did he tell the apostles, “go and teach everything I taught you”?..

Jesus also inspired the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit to write. He knew that man could not teach by word of mouth forever.

OK, then… how does God guarantee it? I can quote you Gospel text where Jesus identifies that it is the Church that is the cornerstone, and it is the Church that is protected!

Please do, thank you… but I wasn’t really questioning the Church, just the Catechism of the Catholic Church… which I now know is the Catholic’s interpretation of understanding God’s Church.

And how do you know that what you decide is correct? How do you know that you haven’t “misheard” God or misinterpreted him? You can ask all day long… but how do you know you’re right?

Never said it was what I decided, nor did I say I was right. I did say God gave us the tools to understand Him, and He fills us with the Holy Spirit to know Him. God wants us to understand Him. God wants us to know Him.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Bible is Word of God.

Indirect Word of God. Bible was inspired but not dictated word by word.

God is the Church.

God is NOT the Church. God guides the Church.

But its fallible… so… how trustworthy could they be if its fallible?

Technically Bible can contain errors too. One Gospel tells us that Apostles weren’t even allowed to bring a staff and other to not even bring staff. Bible is theologically infallible- that is where Infallibility of the Bible stands.

I wasn’t aware Catholics did that… interesting. Who should we trust other than the Lord?

Doctors, parents, teachers… generally trusting others is often good idea. No doctor is infallible yet when they tell me I am sick I kinda trust them. Of course not on a level we trust Lord, but Lord communicates indirectly. What we should not completely trust is our interpretation of God’s indirect communication. St. Ignatius of Loyola had visions from God but also one vision he later found out was from Satan. It is important to discern in natural and supernatural.

That’s what I mean the church wouldn’t teach something that is outside the Bible.

Church does not contradict theological essence of Bible. But Church can teach things not explicitly contained in the Bible (such as that God is Trinity or that contraception is evil, or really anything Holy Spirit guides it to).

God gave us the tools to understand Him, and He fills us with the Holy Spirit to know Him. God wants us to understand Him. God wants us to know Him.

St. Augustine once said “if you think you understand God, you can be sure what you understand isn’t true God.” . I struggle with this too often.

 

[annad347]

Indirect Word of God. Bible was inspired but not dictated word by word.

The Bible is the Word of God.

God is NOT the Church

Without God there is no Church

Bible can contain errors too

The Bible contains no errors… man’s theological understanding of the Bible can contain errors… the Bible itself contains no errors. God gave man The Holy Spirt to help write the Bible, nothing touched by the Holy Spirit of God has errors.

Doctors, parents, teachers… generally trusting others is often good idea…

But are we putting our trust in them or in our prayers to God that those whom we put our trust in, like a doctor is worthy of that trust?

I don’t place my trust I my interpretation, I place them in God. There is a difference.

What was the difference between the two visions St. Ignatius of Loyola had… because surely Catholics believe a vision from God would not be the same as a vision from Satan?

Church can teach things not explicitly contained in the Bible

I don’t think that’s the same… A church teaching their understanding of God’s Word is the same as teaching things outside the Bible.

St. Augustine once said “if you think you understand God, you can be sure what you understand isn’t true God.” . I struggle with this too often.

I do too. I also believe if you stop praying you are following God’s will and not your own, stop question if you have God’s understanding and not your own, stop asking God to put your trust in Him and not yourself, stop seeking God, is when you’ve lost God.

I don’t know St Augustine, but I agree with him about understanding God. If you’re so sure of what you understand to the point you no longer ask question, is when you think you know everything… I don’t think we will ever know everything about God.

God wants us to know Him, wants us to understand Him which is why we always have to we pray that it is He who we know, who we understand… all the time.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

The Church’s doctrine is based on Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (Council Decisions, the teachings of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church, Papal Encyclicals, etc).

The Catechism is a book intended to help summarize these teachings in a single volume, and give references for further reading on the Church’s position on these teachings.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Bible contains no errors…

Mark 6:8
These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff–no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.

Matthew 10:10
Take no bag for the road, or second tunic, or sandals, or staff; for the worker is worthy of his provisions.

What was the difference between the two visions St. Ignatius of Loyola had… because surely Catholics believe a vision from God would not be the same as a vision from Satan?

Catholics believe Satan can impersonate God. Only discernment helped St. Ignatius of Loyola to understand that vision came from Satan. He thought it came from God at first.

I don’t think that’s the same… A church teaching their understanding of God’s Word is the same as teaching things outside the Bible.

Which is why Church has been granted infallibility. Paul calls not Scripture to be “Pillar of Truth” but Church (1 Timothy 3:15).

It is also worth to note that everything New Testament says about Scripture it says about Old Testament. I am not saying it can not be applied to New Testament, but that to First Christians, Scripture meant Old Testament- not the New Testament.

Without God there is no Church

And without mother there is no son. But mother is not the son.

The Bible is the Word of God.

I agree, but it is important that Bible was inspired and not dictated. Muslims believe Quran was dictated word by word. Bible was not written like that. It was inspired to be free of theological error, but not human error as I have demonstrated above.

 

[Hammerer]

The Church is the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ. Christ left us a Church that didn’t have an official Bible Canon for over 300 years.

 

[Ignatius]

It is a reference guide and a “Sure Norm” with thousands of Bible reference to the various points.

 

[TheSeeker]

Yes. Instead of going to different churches and hearing the “personal” understanding or passion of the pastors or bible teachers or priests, we Catholics have a “book of interpretation” of teaching of God. We also recognize that we do not and cannot understand how and why things or events so happened in the Scripture; that is why, we Catholic call them as “mysteries”. So, the CCC serves as the “constitution” or “book of laws” that the contemporary Catholic may follow. In our church history, we have had different sectors that did not agree with the Pope and yet they chose to stay with the church.

Being said, it is a total misunderstanding that we Catholic are blinding following or read the CCC only. Unlike the protestants who always quote from the Bible, we Catholic knows what we belief in. In fact, we have to catch up in this respect with the protestant. We can get to sources in the CCC and quote the source (the Scripture) instead of just saying this is what our church teaches us. We can tell others the teaching our church is based on the Scripture too. The CCC has made the Scripture simply to the common people like us (me).

 

[Justin_Mary]

But in this example, the church’s interpretation came from Scripture. The church is teaching what it means for a wife to be obedient from Scripture. The church wouldn’t teach something that’s not in Scripture, when the teaching is in Scripture.

For example: The church wouldn’t tell a wife, do as your husband commands without question, allow him to do whatever he wants to you and your children even if it’s something that is harmful, or against God.

That’s what I mean the church wouldn’t teach something that is outside the Bible.

The point is that there are many varied interpretations of the bible. As many as there are denominations.

In the early years of Christianity there were many ideas about what is true & it was the Church (Catholic & Orthodox) that would defend truth.

Today, if a church in podunk Mississippi were to begin teaching error, it is the Church that would defend truth. That church would have to decide to stop teaching error or go their own way.

For instance, if a church were to teach the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit were three gods who together created all things & governed all things as if they were 1, the Church would tell them they are wrong, that the three are one, a Holy Trinity, one God. Which is in the catechism, but not in the bible.

But it was our belief way before it was in the CCC. So it’s not the CCC that is the source of this belief, but Sacred Tradition.

 

[annad347]

Mark 6:8… Matthew 10:10

I don’t think the differences is an error, its two different people telling similar story, with minor differences in details. That’s not an error. Did you and your friends ever tell the same story only slightly different, does that make one correct and the other wrong?

Catholics believe Satan can impersonate God. Only discernment helped St. Ignatius of Loyola to understand that vision came from Satan. He thought it came from God at first.

That doesn’t really answer my question. No one other then the leaders of the church have the ability to judge right from wrong? What was the difference between the two visions?

Paul calls not Scripture to be “Pillar of Truth” but Church (1 Timothy 3:15).

Okay… so the church makes up their own thing when teaching us about God?

And without mother there is no son. But mother is not the son.

I have no idea what this means…

… but not human error as I have demonstrated above.

what you demonstrated about wasn’t an error… can you use a different demonstration to show how the Bible error, so I can research it… please.

The Bible is the Word of God, without error. It contains everything God wants us to know about how He wants us to know about Him.

 

[annad347]

But it was our belief way before it was in the CCC. So it’s not the CCC that is the source of this belief, but Sacred Tradition.

and everything in the Catechism has a foot note or a way to show where the reference came from.

So, if someone is answering one of my questions and all they used was the Catechism to answer my question, I would be able to go tot he Catechism and find out where they got that information from… correct?

If its a biblical reference, for me job done, I just read the biblical passage, easy to verify it… but if it was referenced from another source then I just more research to see where that reference came from, and so on ans so on…till God tells me to stop.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Jesus also inspired the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit to write. He knew that man could not teach by word of mouth forever.

I don’t think we can say Jesus “knew that man could not teach by word of mouth forever.” I mean, He’s God.

& the bible was not originally created to teach. It was put together to define what could be used in worship & what could not. The Church said, “These writings express what we believe.”

It is error to think of it the other way around, “We believe what is expressed in these writings.”

There were writings back then that said Jesus was not God, but a prophet. The Church excluded them from the Bible because they were taught God is the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

There were writings that said Jesus appeared as a spirit or a vision. The Church said, “No, we were taught by men who were in that room & touched Him… touched His wounds, watched Him eat & drink.”

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Did you and your friends ever tell the same story only slightly different, does that make one correct and the other wrong?

Yes and yes… or both wrong. I am not saying that story loses essence or that story loses meaning. What I am saying that clear contradiction suggests error. Human error. It does not disregard Infallibility of the Bible that rests on theological Infallibility. Bible is not infallible about every detail which is what we see from my previous post. Two clear contradicting passages can’t be called “not wrong” at the same time.

No one other then the leaders of the church have the ability to judge right from wrong? What was the difference between the two visions?

St. Ignatius was not leader of the Church. We are called to discern and rest on judgment of pillar and foundation of Truth- The Church. Which is why Ignatius of Loyola perceived that he must submit to hierarchical Church and that if hierarchical Church defined something he did not agree with, he has to change his position.

Difference between two visions was impact it had on his life. Satan’s vision was very enjoyable and he wanted more of it. Satan made him feel good but h6r wouldn’t get anything done. Of course that is not only way Satan can impersonate God… so we ought to be careful about other stuff. If anything leads us away from the Church, it is not from God.

Okay… so the church makes up their own thing when teaching us about God?

No. Church teaches what Holy Spirit teaches. But as Church wrote the Bible, Church can also promulgate other infallible documents with help of Holy Spirit. Church Herself can not err. It does not make the Truth, it defines what was handed down through means other than Bible as well as Bible. We are not prima Scriptura Christians.

I have no idea what this means…

That while without someone there is not something else, that someone is not something else. Therefore God is not the Church. Church is Bride of Christ instituted by God. But if Church was God, we couldn’t be part of it without breaking Divine Simplicity (“I am who I am”). It is kinda complicated theology at this point of why God can NOT be Church Herself.

what you demonstrated about wasn’t an error…

What was it then? Mathematically speaking it is an error. One of Apostles got one tiny part of story wrong… but that did not make us understand God less or make our understanding bad. Which is why I am saying Bible contains no theological error. I agree that:

It contains everything God wants us to know about how He wants to know about Him.

But not everything. We learn everything when we die. Learning everything and loving that is infinite process which is Beatific Vision… our reward in the Heaven.

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus also inspired the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit to write.

No, not really. Mark and Luke weren’t apostles! And so, only two out of eleven were inspired to write!

He knew that man could not teach by word of mouth forever.

Umm… pardon? The Catholic Church has been teaching by “word of mouth” for the past 2000 years! That’s precisely what the term “Apostolic Teaching” means!

Please do, thank you…

Sure! In 1 Timothy 3:15, St Paul describes the Church:

the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

So… the “pillar and foundation of truth” isn’t the Bible – even the Bible tells us so! The “pillar and foundation of truth” is the Church.

OrbisNonSufficit:

Paul calls not Scripture to be “Pillar of Truth” but Church (1 Timothy 3:15).

Okay… so the church makes up their own thing when teaching us about God?

(I see that Orbis beat me to the punch regarding 1 Tim 3. Still, it’s not the case that “the church makes up their own thing” – at least, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church *has been given divine authority to teach, and protection against error in teaching. Therefore, it’s not the Church “doing its own thing”; it’s the Church “doing the thing God wants and has authorized”! (Now… those who have left the Church? Are they “making up their own thing”? I’d say “yep.”)

I wasn’t really questioning the Church, just the Catechism of the Catholic Church

I’m missing the distinction that you’re attempting to make, here: if the Church, which has been given divine authority to teach, and protection against teaching doctrinal error, puts forth such teaching, and then puts a catechism to list out that teaching… then how is “questioning the catechism” not questioning the Church?

I now know is the Catholic’s interpretation of understanding God’s Church.

‘Teaching’. The catechism is a guide to understanding the teaching of the Church.

annad347:

I did say God gave us the tools to understand Him, and He fills us with the Holy Spirit to know Him.

There! That’s the point I was hoping we’d reach! OK – so, does the Holy Spirit provide individual Christians with the “tools to understand Him”, and if so, do they actually understand Him? If so, we’re in a lot of trouble – because each Protestant group makes that claim, and yet, their “understandings” diverge (and often, in rather substantial and fundamental ways)! So, either individuals do not have the charism of understanding, or the Holy Spirit is leading lots of folks into error. Which might it be?

God wants us to understand Him. God wants us to know Him.

I agree whole-heartedly! And, what is the means that God gave us to understand Him? The Church that Jesus founded.

 

[Gorgias]

OrbisNonSufficit:

Indirect Word of God. Bible was inspired but not dictated word by word.

The Bible is the Word of God.

Yeah, I don’t know that I’d say “indirect”, either. But the point is well-taken: the Bible is inspired, not dictated verbatim.

OrbisNonSufficit:

Bible can contain errors too

The Bible contains no errors… man’s theological understanding of the Bible can contain errors

Yep, she’s right on this one, too, @OrbisNonSufficit. We proclaim the Bible to be inerrant. Maybe what you’re trying to assert is that the human (inspired) writers of the Bible aren’t inerrant personally. That’s true! And yet, through the inspiration of God, and despite the imperfections of the human writers, the teachings in the Bible are without error. It’s not that “this part” is OK, but “that part” is messed up. It’s that the Spirit-inspired books of Scripture “teach solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”. (That’s Dei verbum, paragraph 11.). There’s a whole kerfuffle over what that means, and some folks wish to water it down (even the council fathers debated long and hard about how to express this notion), but it’s right there in black and white: inerrant.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yep, she’s right on this one, too, @OrbisNonSufficit. We proclaim the Bible to be inerrant. Maybe what you’re trying to assert is that the human (inspired) writers of the Bible aren’t inerrant personally. That’s true! And yet, through the inspiration of God, and despite the imperfections of the human writers, the teachings in the Bible are without error. It’s not that “this part” is OK, but “that part” is messed up. It’s that the Spirit-inspired books of Scripture “teach solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”. (That’s Dei verbum , paragraph 11.). There’s a whole kerfuffle over what that means, and some folks wish to water it down (even the council fathers debated long and hard about how to express this notion), but it’s right there in black and white: inerrant.

What I am saying that Bible can contain historical errors, or errors of perception outside realm of theology. One example is :

Mark 6:8
These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff –no bread, no bag, no money in your belts.

Matthew 10:10
Take no bag for the road, or second tunic, or sandals, or staff ; for the worker is worthy of his provisions.

Which shows that there is some contradiction in the Bible. That comes from fact Bible is inspired and not dictated. However, since it is inspired, meaning stays the same (in both passages, teaching stemming from them is same and not contradictory despite events being explained as such). Bible can not err in theology. After all, Bible is not historical document but theological one. Teachings of the Bible, implications it has for our daily lives but also big picture, are all inerrant. Small details may not be, but ultimately they wouldn’t matter. That is my position… however, if Church teaches otherwise, I am ready to submit to the teaching of the Church.

 

[OddBird]

After all, Bible is not historical document but theological one.

Forgive me for jumping in in the middle of your conversation, but…

To me, and from the perspective of someone who was taught exegesis in a Protestant context, your quote above is why I wouldn’t say the Bible contains errors (even if I’d maybe word it slightly differently, like “the Bible is not first and foremost a historical document…”)

To take up your example, Mark and Matthew have two slightly different perspectives on the life and teaching of Jesus, both of which have something particular to teach us, and this kind of detail is revealing in that it both points to a common historical source and a slightly different view of missionary work and property.

The question I prefer to ask when confronted with such discrepancies is not “all right guys, which one of you got it wrong ?”, but “why do they say what they say, and why does it matter in the particular logic of each particular Gospel, to the risk of disagreeing with one another ?”

I tend to find that these particular points of view – or, maybe more accurately, these different facets of a same prism – are often complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

The metaphor which I have often heard used to explain these discrepancies is that of the road accident – ask four witnesses to describe what happened, and you will get four mostly similar accounts with small discrepancies. But none of them is lying. They just perceived the events each from their singular and irreplaceable point of view.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But none of them is lying. They just perceived the events each from their singular and irreplaceable point of view.

Sure, but if one of them says “that didn’t happen” and other one says “that did happen”, it’s a contradiction. They might not be lying, but one of them might have perceived it wrong or remembered wrongly. I do not accuse anyone of lying… my point is that human memory can only do so much and this little detail is not something that would destroy point of passage, or change it at all. But it would show that memory of Apostles was not protected from forgetting something so minor.

Anyway, your argument seems to also support notion that each option is unique and necessary for fullness of each Gospel. If indeed that is meant to be metaphor and not really what our Lord explicitly said, then that makes perfect sense. If that was meant to capture essence of what our Lord was saying in relation of the Gospel and not being true in explicit sense (meaning that when Gospels say “Lord said” they do not provide exact paraphrasing and hence Lord said something with same meaning, but not word for word… which is obviously the case since Gospels aren’t written in language our Lord was speaking), then I get the point. What I meant is that Bible has to be taken in context and as context… meaning not only does one need to have context to interpret, but interpretation must be context itself. Thank you for clarification and correction.

Now that I think about it, it makes super perfect sense that Bible’s inerrancy applies to entirety of Bible at the same time and not each passage by itself without needing to take into account other passages…

even if I’d maybe word it slightly differently, like “the Bible is not first and foremost a historical document…”

Yes, my apologies. You are correct. Bible indeed is historical document in certain sense. I was just under impression that as historical document, it is not meant to be infallible. I didn’t doubt infallibility of Bible in theological context.

 

[OddBird]

If indeed that is meant to be metaphor and not really what our Lord explicitly said, then that makes perfect sense.

I wouldn’t say it is a metaphor. What I mean is that we cannot access directly to what the Lord said. Whether we like it or not, our only access is mediated – through the memories of those who were witnesses to these events, or through the memories the evangelists had of the memories of those who were witnesses.

In some cases, there is no problem because these memories coincide.

When they don’t, I don’t see another way than postulating that, while I don’t know which one heard it right and which one made a mistake, I have to trust that each one of them transcribed the words of the Lord the best they could, to the best of their abilities, that it made sense to them, and that they each have something to tell us about our Christian faith with what they have understood.

(Or there is the Jesus seminar approach, whose members vote do decide what Jesus really said, but I have to admit I’m skeptical about the quest of the historical Jesus. I think it is ultimately more instructive about the scholars who conduct it than about the Lord.)

I’m not sure I’m even making sense here. I can barely understand my own English

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

When they don’t, I don’t see another way than postulating that, while I don’t know which one heard it right and which one made a mistake, I have to trust that each one of them transcribed the words of the Lord the best they could, to the best of their abilities, that it made sense to them, and that they each have something to tell us about our Christian faith with what they have understood.

That’s exactly my point. We do not know who made a mistake but if indeed goal was to transmit the phrase to us, there has been some sort of mistake. Of course, if phrase was meant to convey meaning and not exact words, that does not necessarily apply.

I’m not sure I’m even making sense here. I can barely understand my own English

You are making perfect sense to me thanks for help.