The Early Church: If They Weren't Catholic, What Were They?

[crazzeto]

I understand the problem with “proof-texting.” My observation is that Catholics proof text in here as much as hardcore evangelicals proof text the Bible. But when we actually read an official Catholic document like that that actually says

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, I don’t really see any other way to take that? Doesn’t sound out of context and I can’t imagine a context that would justify that statement? Anna posted it and I’m sure you can read the whole thing from her citation.

The more I read lumen gentium however, the less I see a claim of infalibility honestly. I think rather it is a strong exhortation to listen to the Roman Pontiff always, i.e. not just when he is proclaiming doctrine but rather also when he is for instance, as mentioned previously, writing an encyclical letter.

These letters do not proclaim doctrine, thus one wouldn’t say they are “infallible” per-se, but that doesn’t mean they don’t bare the weight of truth, and that doesn’t mean we should treat them with skeptisism just because it wasn’t written from the seat of Peter.

 

[crazzeto]

I am saying that you are wrong about what this passage is telling us. Do you agree that this passage you quoted has to have the same message for both of us?

Not sure what to say to you The evidence is all over the bible…

When the world was flooded, God spared exactly 8 people (Noah and his Family), this prefigured the 8th day on which Christ rose from the dead. The day of the new creation.

When did God demand childeren be circomcised? On the 8th day, again prefirguring when Christ would rise making us all a new creation.

Indeed the very sabbath was in fact, created for man… To instruct in gentleness, just as Ezekiel would attest to… And yet again, the new sabbath, the 8th day, is for the new creation and rebirth of man.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I don’t follow?

I wasn’t too clear. There are many ways a pope speaks. They have public audiences in St. Peter’s Square every Wednesday afternoon at which they make a speech, they issue statements about various items of Church business, they write books, they write encyclicals, they write their speeches, etc. Not everything a pope thinks, says or sneezes is an infallible teaching. As josie pointed out, encyclicals are treated differently from speeches and off-the-cuff remarks and we need to recognize the difference.

The document you cited makes a blanket statement which seems to me to say every word a pope utters must be believed by the faithful. I don’t agree with that.

 

[crazzeto]

I wasn’t too clear. There are many ways a pope speaks. They have public audiences in St. Peter’s Square every Wednesday afternoon at which they make a speech, they issue statements about various items of Church business, they write books, they write encyclicals, they write their speeches, etc. Not everything a pope thinks, says or sneezes is an infallible teaching. As josie pointed out, encyclicals are treated differently from speeches and off-the-cuff remarks and we need to recognize the difference.

The document you cited makes a blanket statement which seems to me to say every word a pope utters must be believed by the faithful. I don’t agree with that.

Lumen Gentium must be beleived, it is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. That said, it must also be properly understood which is what Josie was pointing out. Not everything the Pope sneezes is infallible, and frankly even my initial reading of Lumen Gentium didn’t seem to indicate this (as I pointed out to Anna).

More over, the more I study the document the less convinced I am that it is stating that everything the Pope states even in an Encyclical letter is necessarly an infallible doctrine of the Church. Rather I am more seeing a strong exhortation towards being obediant first, and towards submitting to the teaching in said encyclical letter.

It’s not saying that an ecyclical letter is something that will never be reviewed later on, perhaps even modified etc. In fact Pope Benidict the XVI already modified the teaching of a previous Pontiff’s encyclical letter (I believe Paul VI?) on Globalization.

I still intend to attempt getting onto the EWTN Open Line program today to talk with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, but honestly I am reading a distinction still, between statements Ex-Cathadra and, for instance, Encyclical Letters.

I don’t think Lumen Gentium suggests the IC could have been dogmatically proclaimed merely in letter, or passing comment.

 

[josie_L]

Submitting “mind and will” are not my words. They are taken from the following and it is what is expected of Catholics:

Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_c…entium_en.html

(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about considering that this is in reference to bishops, i.e., if the pope is going to teach about the evils of birth control then bishops too must teach about the evils of birth control, i.e., “teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff”.

 

[josie_L]

Lumen Gentium must be beleived, it is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. That said, it must also be properly understood which is what Josie was pointing out. Not everything the Pope sneezes is infallible, and frankly even my initial reading of Lumen Gentium didn’t seem to indicate this (as I pointed out to Anna).

More over, the more I study the document the less convinced I am that it is stating that everything the Pope states even in an Encyclical letter is necessarly an infallible doctrine of the Church. Rather I am more seeing a strong exhortation towards being obediant first, and towards submitting to the teaching in said encyclical letter.

It’s not saying that an ecyclical letter is something that will never be reviewed later on, perhaps even modified etc. In fact Pope Benidict the XVI already modified the teaching of a previous Pontiff’s encyclical letter (I believe Paul VI?) on Globalization.

I still intend to attempt getting onto the EWTN Open Line program today to talk with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, but honestly I am reading a distinction still, between statements Ex-Cathadra and, for instance, Encyclical Letters.

I don’t think Lumen Gentium suggests the IC could have been dogmatically proclaimed merely in letter, or passing comment.

Crazzetto, what anna scott posted about submission is referring to bishops . . . . . so what’s the big deal?

 

[josie_L]

I wasn’t too clear. There are many ways a pope speaks. They have public audiences in St. Peter’s Square every Wednesday afternoon at which they make a speech, they issue statements about various items of Church business, they write books, they write encyclicals, they write their speeches, etc. Not everything a pope thinks, says or sneezes is an infallible teaching. As josie pointed out, encyclicals are treated differently from speeches and off-the-cuff remarks and we need to recognize the difference.

The document you cited makes a blanket statement which seems to me to say every word a pope utters must be believed by the faithful. I don’t agree with that.

That’s not what the document is saying however.

 

[Javl]

I must remind all of you that the Magisterium is the teaching arm of the Church and we are all bound to believe its pronouncements. The Magisterium is infallible and consists of the Pope and the College of Bishops ( all the Bishops from all the Catholic Churches, East and West ). The Pope is infallible when speaking ex-Cathedra only when with the Bishops in Magisterium. When the Pope does not speak ex-Cathedra we are not bound to accept or agree with any of his pronouncements.

The Pope’s Bulls, Epistles, Letters, etc., are not dogma. They may concern Church law ( Eclesiastic or Canon ), a teaching, and explanation, or expansion on a teaching, and the like. We are free to accept or reject. It is only dogma, which is the basis of our belief and faith and the means of our salvation that we must not and cannot reject.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

I have a couple of things to say with respect to the document you posted, for instance, when the pope writes an encyclical about why we cannot allow female priests should we disregard this as optional (teaching of the faith) simply because it was not spoken ex-cathedra, or are we to submit to his understanding of the faith (which should not conflict with the deposit of faith) mind and will? When Pope Paul IV wrote humanae vitae does the fact it was not spoken ex-cathedra make it less truthful and therefore optional? No. Are we as Catholics to adhere to what he taught on birth control? Yes, in that we submit mind and will. There are so many encyclicals which deal with issues of a moral nature which are not classified as ex-cathedra statements but which nevertheless do not violate the deposit of faith either, i.e., teachings on abortion, stem cell research, invitro fertilization . . . etc. We are to submit mind and will when we understand that the mind and will of popes are in accord with the faith, i.e., the Pope cannot teach that which is not part of the deposit.

In actuality none is dogma and we can reject it. But since all these do refer in one way or another to dogma and the basic teachings of Jesus and the Apostles ( truths ) it would be wise on our part not to reject any of it.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[josie_L]

In actuality none is dogma and we can reject it. But since all these do refer in one way or another to dogma and the basic teachings of Jesus and the Apostles ( truths ) it would be wise on our part not to reject any of it.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Agreed, it is not dogma but at the same time it should not be rejected just because it is not.

 

[Anna_Scott]

(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about considering that this is in reference to bishops, i.e., if the pope is going to teach about the evils of birth control then bishops too must teach about the evils of birth control, i.e., “teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff”.

See the sentence I highlighted in blue. What I am trying to understand is how Catholics deal with “fallible” teachings. Are you to submit to all teachings, even when not spoken ex cathedra?

Anna

 

[ron77nyc]

A faithful Catholic agrees and follows the infallible teachings of the Church.

The infallible teachings of the Church NEVER change and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Does anyone know what all the infallible teachings of the Church are?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I wasn’t too clear. There are many ways a pope speaks. They have public audiences in St. Peter’s Square every Wednesday afternoon at which they make a speech, they issue statements about various items of Church business, they write books, they write encyclicals, they write their speeches, etc. Not everything a pope thinks, says or sneezes is an infallible teaching. As josie pointed out, encyclicals are treated differently from speeches and off-the-cuff remarks and we need to recognize the difference.

The document you cited makes a blanket statement which seems to me to say every word a pope utters must be believed by the faithful. I don’t agree with that.

See Crazzeto’s response to you below re “Lumen Gentium must be believed, it is an infallible teaching of Vatican II.”

Lumen Gentium must be beleived, it is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. That said, it must also be properly understood which is what Josie was pointing out. Not everything the Pope sneezes is infallible, and frankly even my initial reading of Lumen Gentium didn’t seem to indicate this (as I pointed out to Anna).

I understand.

More over, the more I study the document the less convinced I am that it is stating that everything the Pope states even in an Encyclical letter is necessarly an infallible doctrine of the Church. Rather I am more seeing a strong exhortation towards being obediant first, and towards submitting to the teaching in said encyclical letter.

It does read like a call to obedience and submission to teachings, even when not spoken ex cathedra.

It’s not saying that an ecyclical letter is something that will never be reviewed later on, perhaps even modified etc. In fact Pope Benidict the XVI already modified the teaching of a previous Pontiff’s encyclical letter (I believe Paul VI?) on Globalization.

This is a point of concern for me. Catholics are called to submission to teachings of the Church, i.e. Papal Encyclicals, even though they are not spoken ex cathedra and may change or be modified in the future. I’m trying to understand to what extent obedience is required.

I still intend to attempt getting onto the EWTN Open Line program today to talk with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, but honestly I am reading a distinction still, between statements Ex-Cathadra and, for instance, Encyclical Letters.

I don’t think Lumen Gentium suggests the IC could have been dogmatically proclaimed merely in letter, or passing comment.

I agree, it doesn’t sound like it’s referring to every passing comment, but to “His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

I’m interested in hearing what Fr. Mitch Pacwa has to say. Thanks for your help, Crazzeto.

Anna

 

[eddy714]

I do. Scripture makes it pretty clear…hope I don’t end up there, yeesh!

But I’m convinced that hell would consist of me being forced to listen to mariachi music, watch Raiders games, watch American Idol, listen to Mylie Cyrus music, and watch infomercials…while I’m burning. And just to add to the torment I’d have to watch the LeBron James team search possibilities forever and ever!

You would problably end up in pulgatory you have to get cleansed from that Giants sin .

 

[josie_L]

See the sentence I highlighted in blue. What I am trying to understand is how Catholics deal with “fallible” teachings. Are you to submit to all teachings, even when not spoken ex cathedra?

Anna

But Anna you chose this particular document which is referring to bishops, i.e., if you wanted to know in what manner Catholics approach papal teachings (which are not ex-cathedra statements) then why didn’t you simply ask instead of posting what you did? Either way your question was responded to (please read my post and those of JAVL).

God bless.

 

[Javl]

See the sentence I highlighted in blue. What I am trying to understand is how Catholics deal with “fallible” teachings. Are you to submit to all teachings, even when not spoken ex cathedra?

Anna

No. We are under no obligation to submit to, or accept, all teachings when they are not given ex-Cathedra. If these teachings define, or expand upon the teaching, etc., we will usually accept them and abide by them. As an example, Lumen Gentum. Many accept it and many have rejected it. ( I do not remember the Pope speaking ex-Cathedra on this. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[josie_L]

No. We are under no obligation to submit to, or accept, all teachings when they are not given ex-Cathedra. If these teachings define, or expand upon the teaching, etc., we will usually accept them and abide by them. As an example, Lumen Gentum. Many accept it and many have rejected it. ( I do not remember the Pope speaking ex-Cathedra on this. )

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Be careful of what you say here because we do not want Anna to think that just because humanae vitae was not spoken ex-cathedra that it should not be adhered to, i.e., you might want to expand on your commentary.

 

[crazzeto]

This is a point of concern for me. Catholics are called to submission to teachings of the Church, i.e. Papal Encyclicals, even though they are not spoken ex cathedra and may change or be modified in the future. I’m trying to understand to what extent obedience is required.

I agree, it doesn’t sound like it’s referring to every passing comment, but to “His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

I’m interested in hearing what Fr. Mitch Pacwa has to say. Thanks for your help, Crazzeto.

Anna

Here’s my thought Anna,

If no such exortation was offered then what different would we be from Protestants exercising private judgment? Again as I have said before, there is need to trust in the teaching authority of the Church. That she will not fail, just as promised in the gosples.

If there is cause for concern with the contents of an encycical letter (something I doubt there would be), then I have faith in the entirty of the magesterium to deal with it. It’s not my place, as a lay faithful to take on the Pope.

 

[ron77nyc]

The infallible teachings of the Church NEVER change and I defy you to prove otherwise.

Salvation for only baptized Catholics was infallibly declared for 20 centuries. The Church no longer teaches this. Is that good enough?

 

[crazzeto]

Salvation for only baptized Catholics was infallibly declared for 20 centuries. The Church no longer teaches this. Is that good enough?

Are you 100% sure about what you just posted.