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

[crazzeto]

Anna,

I’ve already offered my own thoughts, I hope they help. I hope that perhaps tomorrow I can get you a more official Church response.

 

[ron77nyc]

A Bulls is an administrative form of Papal communication. Not necessarily infallible, depends on the content. Councils are infallible when exercising the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, in teaching or defining doctrine or dogma. They may be fallible, if exercising the Ordinary Magisterium. An encyclical, like a Bull, depends on the content and intent, as to it’s degree of theological certainty and the extent to which assent must be given to its contents.

Popes are infallible, under the narrow definition of an ex cathedra statement, or when teaching or defining under the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.

Popes, bishops and Councils may teach under the Ordinary Magisterium, but this not infallible.

However, in any case, the faithful must assent to any teaching of any form of the Magisterium.

I think.

Are these 2 statements infallible?

• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

 

[GKC]

Are these 2 statements infallible?

• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

By the rules, looks like a solemn definition of doctrine/dogma. looks like an example of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, to me, at least. I say, infallible, by the definition.

But, of course, I’m not infallible. I could be wrong.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

but my friend. she is willing to listen and learn. its really not her way of forcing a definition of her own invention on anyone. she has come further than you can possibly realize. a little patience please?. . . .

again my friend. her aim IS to consider Catholicism. she is a dear sister in Christ, who is trying to find just where she belongs. trust me when i tell you, she really is trying to understand. please try to be long suffering. . . . .

Benidict,

I appreciate your kind words of support. It’s a rocky road these days.

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.

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.

. . . .Many Popes have been theologians and as such in many cases issue Epistles or Encyclicals, and at times, Bulls, as a teaching document or pronouncement. Since the majority of the faithfull are not well trained, it is usually to their advantage to listen to and understand what the Pope says, although they are not bound to do so.

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.

Javl,

As always, I appreciate your comments. I do understand the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

It is the issue of how Catholics deal with fallible teachings that I am trying to understand. It seems that Catholics are not in agreement on this—as this thread demonstrates.

As I said to josie L, I quoted Lumen Gentium from the Vatican website, which deals with “submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”

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

Crazzeto said Lumen Gentium is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. Doesn’t that make “submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” an infallible teaching?

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.

Javl,

The document does read as Crazzeto said—as a strong exhortation to obedience. It is this strong exhortation to obedience to teachings that may change or be modified over time that concerns me. Which brings me back to whether or not I could “submit mind and will” to the Pontiff–a critical issue in considering Catholicism.

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

Benidict,

I appreciate your kind words of support. It’s a rocky road these days.

Javl,

As always, I appreciate your comments. I do understand the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

It is the issue of how Catholics deal with fallible teachings that I am trying to understand. It seems that Catholics are not in agreement on this—as this thread demonstrates.

As I said to josie L, I quoted Lumen Gentium from the Vatican website, which deals with “submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”

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

Crazzeto said Lumen Gentium is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. Doesn’t that make “submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” an infallible teaching?

Javl,

The document does read as Crazzeto said—as a strong exhortation to obedience. It is this strong exhortation to obedience to teachings that may change or be modified over time that concerns me. Which brings me back to whether or not I could “submit mind and will” to the Pontiff–a critical issue in considering Catholicism.

Anna

Personally, I don’t see the problem here. There are doctrinal teachings, and teachings which are not doctrinal… In either case, I honestly don’t undrstand what your problem is submitting to these teachings. Even those teachings which can not be classed as being doctrinal frankly, don’t change quite as often as some people claim.

Being 100% frank, I have no problem submitting my will to the Roman Pontiff. The fact of the matter is, I’m really just a religious amature, really and truely. I wish I could know more, I wish I could do more, I wish I could dedicate my entire life to study of the faith, but if I did that you’d be calling me father and I wouldn’t be married nor would I ever have natural childeren. I can’t do that. In fact, the past 1+ month has brought something into sharp forcus for me, Christ’s discourse regarding serving two masters. Those of us who opt not to enter the religious life truely serve two masters, our priorities are split. Certainly I try my best to err towards greater holyness but I know it’s not going to happen every time.

Already I’ve passed on joining the pro-life freedom rides in Atlanta, which I desperatly wanted to attend, because it wasn’t pratcial for my wife and I. And that’s just a small example of my interests being split.

The Pontiff on the other hand… Well Benedict XVI has in fact dedicated the whole of his life to Christ. He’s consecrated, he’s celebate, he is completely Christ’s. Why would I impose my own will over his?

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .For me ultimitly putting my mind, will and faith the more local authority, extends to submitting my mind, will and placing all my faith in Christ him self. . . . .

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.

Lumen Gentium must be beleived, it is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. That said, it must also be properly understood. . . .

. . . .Rather I am more seeing a strong exhortation towards being obediant first, and towards submitting to the teaching in said encyclical letter. . . . .

. . .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.

. . . . .The document does read as Crazzeto said—as a strong exhortation to obedience. It is this strong exhortation to obedience to teachings that may change or be modified over time that concerns me. Which brings me back to whether or not I could “submit mind and will” to the Pontiff–a critical issue in considering Catholicism.

Personally, I don’t see the problem here. There are doctrinal teachings, and teachings which are not doctrinal… In either case, I honestly don’t undrstand what your problem is submitting to these teachings. Even those teachings which can not be classed as being doctrinal frankly, don’t change quite as often as some people claim.

Being 100% frank, I have no problem submitting my will to the Roman Pontiff. The fact of the matter is, I’m really just a religious amature, really and truely. I wish I could know more, I wish I could do more, I wish I could dedicate my entire life to study of the faith, but if I did that you’d be calling me father and I wouldn’t be married nor would I ever have natural childeren. I can’t do that. In fact, the past 1+ month has brought something into sharp forcus for me, Christ’s discourse regarding serving two masters. Those of us who opt not to enter the religious life truely serve two masters, our priorities are split. Certainly I try my best to err towards greater holyness but I know it’s not going to happen every time.

Already I’ve passed on joining the pro-life freedom rides in Atlanta, which I desperatly wanted to attend, because it wasn’t pratcial for my wife and I. And that’s just a small example of my interests being split.

The Pontiff on the other hand… Well Benedict XVI has in fact dedicated the whole of his life to Christ. He’s consecrated, he’s celebate, he is completely Christ’s. Why would I impose my own will over his?

Crazzeto,

I appreciate all your posts and your willingness to check this further. But—how can you say you don’t understand what “my problem is” in submitting to teachings, whether they are doctrinal teachings or teachings which are not doctrinal?

The Catholics on this thread can’t agree on what is expected of them regarding the acceptance of “fallible teachings.”

And as far as I can tell, no Catholic on this thread even knew that the LUMEN GENTIUM states, “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. . . .”

Come on Crazzeto, this is a serious issue. If Catholics can’t agree on how they are to view fallible teachings; how can you not see that this would be an obstacle to one considering Catholicism?

As gurneyhalleck1 pointed out, “That one disturbing line is pretty conclusive…”

The VERY disturbing part of this archived statement is this part for me:

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.

That seems to take obedience futher with the papacy than Catholics claim it to be?

That one disturbing line is pretty conclusive…

. . . . .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.

To those who say I am taking this out of context, I ask you to give me your understanding of the “proper” context.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think the appeal of Catholicism is that it proposes to fit all pegs into their proper slots. It’s so systematic and complex and has a rule for everything imaginable. It seeks to explain everything and have an answer for everything with the catechism, encyclicals, catechisms, and an extensively enormous code of canon law, you name it.

But there are holes, gaping ones, for me. And I see you have the same problem, Anna. We are kindred spirits here, my sister in Christ. How can one say that Lumen Gentium is INFALLIBLE and then also say that not everything a pope says is infallible when the actual encyclical Lumen Gentium says that everything ex cathedra AND NOT ex cathedra are infallible? This is circular reasoning on steroids IMO.

We have such definitive confident, authoritative things claimed by popes like the assumption of Mary. It’s considered infallible and mandatory to believe. Almost 1900 years after Our Lord’s Ascension the Pope tells us Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. That’s fine. But if you ask, “was she alive or was she dead at the time?” They say, “well we don’t know that??” How can they know with 100% metaphysical certitude (I’m sounding like old man McClaughlin on the McClaughlin Group on PBS!) that Mary was assumed and yet not know if she was alive or dead? Isn’t the Holy Spirit revealing this to the Church? Why can’t that be known but the other fact can? Why the veil?

The truth is that Catholics have a HUGE disagreement about what’s infallible and what’s not. And if Lumen Gentium IS infallible then everything the pope says is infallible because of the contents!? :hypno:

You want a good comparison? I remember an episode of Star Trek called “I, Mudd” where Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, and the gang are trying to escape from a lair of superior humanoid robots. These androids are so strong and so many of them are around that Kirk knows the only way to escape is to confuse the androids with circular illogical thoughts that they’ll blow a fuse. Spock walks up to the android leader and says, “now listen to me. Everything I’m about to tell you is a lie.” Then he says, “I’m lying now!” The robot says, “everything you say is a lie but if you’re lying then you’re telling the truth but if the truth is a lie then…” blows a fuse. This is the same thing?

There is an equal amount of confusion with the development of doctrine (Newman) approach versus the “day one” approach I like to call it. Half the Catholics in here will tell you that day one the Church had adoration, belief that the pope is infallible and universally supreme, purgatory, indulgences, the whole nine yards. And yet on the other hand, the other half will admit (which I find most logical and rational) will say that these things unfolded over time (most of them) and it was God’s will to do so. Which one was it? Some say both. HUH?

Anna, don’t you wish the Lord would come along and just blind us like Paul, get us up, slap us around a bit spiritually and then open our eyes to KNOW the truth. Wouldn’t that be awesome! Instead we’re all amateur (as Crazzeto aptly put it) theologian apologists trying to make sense of it all. At this point I don’t think it’s possible but I’m searching, like you.

I’m getting ready to drive 50 minutes to an Orthodox church up in Fresno and grow a long beard! LOL

,

Come on Crazzeto, this is a serious issue. If Catholics can’t agree on how they are to view fallible teachings; how can you not see that this would be an obstacle to one considering Catholicism?

As gurneyhalleck1 pointed out, “That one disturbing line is pretty conclusive…”

To those who say I am taking this out of context, I ask you to give me your understanding of the “proper” context.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Nicea,

That’s what I thought. Just as you said, “at the end of the day the interpretation of the Church is all that matters.”

I just found this on the Vatican website. It 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;. . . . "

Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html. . . .

So, doesn’t that mean a Catholic should not disagree with the Roman Pontiff? A Catholic is to show “submission of mind and will” to the Pope, even when he is not speaking “ex cathedra”?

Anna, I do not see any issue with the statement from your source. Honestly,I think you are reading far to much into the matter.

Anna,unfortunately the church does not have absolute mind or physical control over every single Catholic. Some Catholics will still disagree with the pope and that is nothing new. I really think you are looking to deep in the matter.

Nicea,

Submitting “mind and will” to a religious leader is a big issue for me.

Anna

Depends on what grounds. If the pope is not accord with doctrine and teaching heresy,then of course. Your statement sounds a bit overgeneralized.

Does David Koresh or Jim Jones ring a bell? Do you consider those two men in accord with the gospel of Christ? Many submitted ‘mind and will’ to them regardless if both were in the wrong. That is called a cult,not an orthodox teaching.

I believe the entire document needs to be read before any type of conclusion can be made.

I agree. Will take a while. I think it is more than 60 pages.

Anna

Wow! See what I mean? It is 60 pages and one truly needs to read it all and not make conclusions off a few words.

Not necessarily! A lot of words,sentences,paragraphs may appear conclusive when not read in their entirety with the whole document/work. Case in point, I see many anti-Catholics constantly doing the same with the works of the early church fathers to prove a Protestant agenda or doctrines,such as Sola Scriptura. But when one takes the time to read the entire work of the church father, one can notice he was not even saying anything what the anti-Catholic wanted to protray.

It is called a classic case of “proof-texting” or “reading-into” what is not there.

Sorry my friend,but as I stated,the above is not the entire document,which I believe is 60 pages long. One cannot isolate one sentence and claim it is conclusive and that is something I do remember being taught as a History major when sources were being analyzed. Case in point, you just mentioned the Bible,which is very common to isolate on specific passage and use it as a smoking gun. One has to relate the passage with the entire Bible.

Nicea325,

I agree that ideally the entire document should considered. However, I can’t quote a 60+ page document on the forums. And I’ll admit I haven’t read the entire document; but my guess is that there are few on this thread who have read the document in its entirety–yet opinions are still being posted.

So far, Crazzeto is the only Catholic who has made any kind of “in context” statement about Lumen Gentium and its exhortation to “submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”

The only comment you’ve made about the contents of Lumen Gentium was to connect submission of mind and will to cults.

. . . .Does David Koresh or Jim Jones ring a bell? Do you consider those two men in accord with the gospel of Christ? Many submitted ‘mind and will’ to them regardless if both were in the wrong. That is called a cult,not an orthodox teaching.

I ask for you comments regarding the proper “in context” understanding of such a call of submission of “mind and will.”

I would think this is far more important for Catholics to understand—if, as Crazzeto said, Lumen Gentium is an infallible teaching of Vatican II.

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

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think the appeal of Catholicism is that it proposes to fit all pegs into their proper slots. It’s so systematic and complex and has a rule for everything imaginable. It seeks to explain everything and have an answer for everything with the catechism, encyclicals, catechisms, and an extensively enormous code of canon law, you name it.

But there are holes, gaping ones, for me. And I see you have the same problem, Anna. We are kindred spirits here, my sister in Christ. How can one say that Lumen Gentium is INFALLIBLE and then also say that not everything a pope says is infallible when the actual encyclical Lumen Gentium says that everything ex cathedra AND NOT ex cathedra are infallible? This is circular reasoning on steroids IMO.

We have such definitive confident, authoritative things claimed by popes like the assumption of Mary. It’s considered infallible and mandatory to believe. Almost 1900 years after Our Lord’s Ascension the Pope tells us Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. That’s fine. But if you ask, “was she alive or was she dead at the time?” They say, “well we don’t know that??” How can they know with 100% metaphysical certitude (I’m sounding like old man McClaughlin on the McClaughlin Group on PBS!) that Mary was assumed and yet not know if she was alive or dead? Isn’t the Holy Spirit revealing this to the Church? Why can’t that be known but the other fact can? Why the veil?

The truth is that Catholics have a HUGE disagreement about what’s infallible and what’s not. And if Lumen Gentium IS infallible then everything the pope says is infallible because of the contents!? :hypno:

You want a good comparison? I remember an episode of Star Trek called “I, Mudd” where Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, and the gang are trying to escape from a lair of superior humanoid robots. These androids are so strong and so many of them are around that Kirk knows the only way to escape is to confuse the androids with circular illogical thoughts that they’ll blow a fuse. Spock walks up to the android leader and says, “now listen to me. Everything I’m about to tell you is a lie.” Then he says, “I’m lying now!” The robot says, “everything you say is a lie but if you’re lying then you’re telling the truth but if the truth is a lie then…” blows a fuse. This is the same thing?

There is an equal amount of confusion with the development of doctrine (Newman) approach versus the “day one” approach I like to call it. Half the Catholics in here will tell you that day one the Church had adoration, belief that the pope is infallible and universally supreme, purgatory, indulgences, the whole nine yards. And yet on the other hand, the other half will admit (which I find most logical and rational) will say that these things unfolded over time (most of them) and it was God’s will to do so. Which one was it? Some say both. HUH?

Anna, don’t you wish the Lord would come along and just blind us like Paul, get us up, slap us around a bit spiritually and then open our eyes to KNOW the truth. Wouldn’t that be awesome! Instead we’re all amateur (as Crazzeto aptly put it) theologian apologists trying to make sense of it all. At this point I don’t think it’s possible but I’m searching, like you.

I’m getting ready to drive 50 minutes to an Orthodox church up in Fresno and grow a long beard! LOL

gurney,

Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts on a serious issue and add some much needed Star Trek humor.

I am discovering that Catholics are not in agreement when it come to fallible teachings. I had no idea introducing Lumen Gentium would cause so much trouble. I’ve been busy answering the gazillion responses to my quotes from that document. :blackeye: Really, I’m just trying to understand how all this works in Catholicism. And there are holes and gaps in many areas.

I’m with you, I do wish we could have a “Damascus Road” experience (except maybe without the blindness. ) I’m really quite exhausted.

Hope you enjoy your visit to the Orthodox Church. I have much to learn about EO.

Working out my salvation in fear and trembling,
Anna

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325,

I agree that ideally the entire document should considered. However, I can’t quote a 60+ page document on the forums. And I’ll admit I haven’t read the entire document; but my guess is that there are few on this thread who have read the document in its entirety–yet opinions are still being posted.

So far, Crazzeto is the only Catholic who has made any kind of “in context” statement about Lumen Gentium and its exhortation to “submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”

The only comment you’ve made about the contents of Lumen Gentium was to connect submission of mind and will to cults.

I ask for you comments regarding the proper “in context” understanding of such a call of submission of “mind and will.”

I would think this is far more important for Catholics to understand—if, as Crazzeto said, Lumen Gentium is an infallible teaching of Vatican II.

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

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Anna

Anna,

With all honesty and sincerety towards you,but you seem under the impression ALL Catholics are programmed to always see eye-to-eye with the pope,whether it is doctrinal or his own opinions on any matter. Once again, does not matter if every Catholic reads the entire document,it is not rare some will still give their opinions? Who cares! Isn’t that the case with everything else in life? I do not understand what it is you want us Catholics to explain or say?

As a Director of Catechesis at a local parish here in So.Cal, I make it very simple to the parents: Either take it or leave when it comes to the teachings of the church. Each us can spend an eternity give our opinions and never get nowhere. As stated,Jesus was not concerned with everyone’s opinions,but only the TRUTH. Take it or leave it!

I ask for you comments regarding the proper “in context” understanding of such a call of submission of “mind and will.”

I cannot give you a sound answer,because I not read the entire document.In regards to Koresh and Jones? Their 'mind and wil’l was more of a ‘control’ tactic,than any relation to doctrine.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

With all honesty and sincerety towards you,but you seem under the impression ALL Catholics are programmed to always see eye-to-eye with the pope,whether it is doctrinal or his own opinions on any matter. Once again, does not matter if every Catholic reads the entire document,it is not rare some will still give their opinions? Who cares! Isn’t that the case with everything else in life? I do not understand what it is you want us Catholics to explain or say?

As a Director of Catechesis at a local parish here in So.Cal, I make it very simple to the parents: Either take it or leave when it comes to the teachings of the church. Each us can spend an eternity give our opinions and never get nowhere. As stated,Jesus was not concerned with everyone’s opinions,but only the TRUTH. Take it or leave it!

I cannot give you a sound answer,because I not read the entire document.In regards to Koresh and Jones? Their 'mind and wil’l was more of a ‘control’ tactic,than any relation to doctrine.

Nicea,
I’m really not under the impression that “all Catholics are programmed to always see eye-to-eye with the pope.” I see evidence to the contrary very often on the forums. I was simply trying to understand what would be expected of me, if I converted to Catholicism.

I’m really not expecting every Catholic to read the entire document. It’s just that you were talking about “proof-texting” or “reading-into” what is not there;" when all I was wanting was some clarification regarding what it means to submit mind and will to Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

Your advice to parents to “either take it or leave when it comes to the teachings of the church,” is very helpful. That’s really what I’m asking.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Nicea,
I’m really not under the impression that “all Catholics are programmed to always see eye-to-eye with the pope.” I see evidence to the contrary very often on the forums. I was simply trying to understand what would be expected of me, if I converted to Catholicism.

I’m really not expecting every Catholic to read the entire document. It’s just that you were talking about “proof-texting” or “reading-into” what is not there;" when all I was wanting was some clarification regarding what it means to submit mind and will to Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

Your advice to parents to “either take it or leave when it comes to the teachings of the church,” is very helpful. That’s really what I’m asking.

Thanks,
Anna

Greetings Anna!

When it comes to matters of faith and morals, a faithful Catholic must follow the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

Is there a specific issue that is troubling you?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,
I’m really not under the impression that “all Catholics are programmed to always see eye-to-eye with the pope.” I see evidence to the contrary very often on the forums. I was simply trying to understand what would be expected of me, if I converted to Catholicism.

I’m really not expecting every Catholic to read the entire document. It’s just that you were talking about “proof-texting” or “reading-into” what is not there;" when all I was wanting was some clarification regarding what it means to submit mind and will to Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.

Your advice to parents to “either take it or leave when it comes to the teachings of the church,” is very helpful. That’s really what I’m asking.

Thanks,
Anna

I was simply trying to understand what would be expected of me, if I converted to Catholicism.

Simple my friend, following the teachings of the church and not be bogged down with other Catholics opinions about papal encyclicals or doctrine. Either Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth or He simply made an empty promise?

 

[Javl]

Did the early Church decry the usage of “birth control”? Because my understanding is yes, therefore, if you say we are under no obligation to accept this teaching, are you saying we can use birth contol?

p.s. I understand the difference between infallible statements and those that are not, however, when it comes to issues of morality, are we not looking to Tradition (as well as scripture) in order to establish truth?

Yes, the early Church did. But then the Church does endorse and recommend a form of birth control ( natural, not artificial ). It’s called the “rythm method” which depends upon the time of female ovulation. No chemicals or intrauterine devices are used.

As far as moral issues go, again we are under no obligation to accept them, but in accordance with the teachings of the Church we should accept them for our salvation.

And those teachings which are scriptural and backed up by sacred Tradition are Dogma, which, under pain of mortal sin, we must accept for our salvation.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Anna_Scott]

Simple my friend, following the teachings of the church and not be bogged down with other Catholics opinions about papal encyclicals or doctrine. Either Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth or He simply made an empty promise?

Nicea,

I do like simplicity; but the more I study Catholicism, the more complicated it becomes.

I did find an interesting commentary on Non-Infallibility: The Papacy And Rahner, by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap., at the Catholic Culture Library.

Many of my concerns about Lumen Gentium are discussed, there. So, I’m not the only one who has questions about "submission of mind and will to the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. The article does speak of non-infallible propositions of the Vatican congregations as “speculative judgments.” This addresses one of my concerns regarding submission to fallible teachings that may turn out to be wrong.

Link: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4210

"Karl Rahner, however, stated that this teaching in No. 25 of Lumen Gentium " . . . is not to be propounded in such a way that in practice an absolute assent is still demanded or that there were no instance in which one might withhold assent."3 "

"Now, John Paul II has stated: "With regard to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25).“15 Again, in the absence of anything to the contrary, one must interpret John Paul II’s above statement consistent with the interpretation given to this matter by Pius IX and Pius X. This would mean that theologians and laity are bound by these Pontifical congregation statements merely with regard to writing and teaching.”

"So, this religious submission of will and mind, which John Paul II says must be given to non-infallible statements of the papal magisterium means, first of all, that the theologian must submit his will and mind (assent) to the decisions of the Vatican congregations “conformably with his (the pope’s) manifest mind and intention.” But, since it is the expressed intention of the papal magisterium that these propositions of the Vatican congregations are non-infallible, as speculative judgments in themselves, one must assume that the pope does not intend that Catholics and theologians be bound to give a submission of will and mind (an assent) to the propositions, themselves, as speculative judgments. He only intends Catholics and theologians to give a submission of will and mind (an assent) to these proposals as the practical judgment of the Pontifical congregations. "

I didn’t realize "external or public questioning and dissent is never permitted. Yikes! :bigyikes:

“So, while external or public questioning and dissent in verbal or written form is never permitted, internal questioning, along with further investigation and discussion of the matter with a Vatican congregation, is permitted. Otherwise, possible error or discrepancies on either side would never be discovered and rectified.18”

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Greetings Anna!

When it comes to matters of faith and morals, a faithful Catholic must follow the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

Is there a specific issue that is troubling you?

CHESTERTONRULES,

It’s been a long time. Where have you been?

As for what’s troubling me, I don’t know where to start.

Most recently, it’s the issue of “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. . . .”

If you skim my posts from #553 forward, you’ll be up to speed. I welcome any comments you have.

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

*DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
**
". . . . .25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.

(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. . . . ."

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES,

It’s been a long time. Where have you been?

As for what’s troubling me, I don’t know where to start.

Most recently, it’s the issue of “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. . . .”

If you skim my posts from #553 forward, you’ll be up to speed. I welcome any comments you have.

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

*DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
**
". . . . .25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.

(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’ve been posting on other sites and checking back here occasionally. I find that there are many good Catholics here providing good solid Catholic answers that I’m not contributing anything unique.

I’ve been trying to correct gross misinformation about Catholics on many other sites, however, and I think that I can make a difference there.

Regarding your concern:

Not all dogmatic teaching of the Church is ex Cathedra.

I think you would find that this does not apply to anything trivial or inessential to the faith.

For example, I doubt that there is an ex Cathedra teaching regarding the resurrection, but it is part of the dogmatic teaching of the magesterium.

 

[GKC]

CHESTERTONRULES,

It’s been a long time. Where have you been?

As for what’s troubling me, I don’t know where to start.

Most recently, it’s the issue of “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. . . .”

If you skim my posts from #553 forward, you’ll be up to speed. I welcome any comments you have.

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

*DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
**
". . . . .25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.

(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. . . . ."

Anna,

Since, according to my understanding, subject to correction, that is precisely what you must affirm as a RC, I am at a loss, if you cannot so affirm it, why the RCC is still drawing you.

GKC

 

[Javl]

Benidict,

I appreciate your kind words of support. It’s a rocky road these days.

Not only rocky, but quite difficult.

Javl,

As always, I appreciate your comments. I do understand the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

It is the issue of how Catholics deal with fallible teachings that I am trying to understand. It seems that Catholics are not in agreement on this—as this thread demonstrates.

Yes, a good observation. I’m sad to say that not all of us are that well informed about what we must believe and what we can ignore. This is one of the things that stop many interested believers from entering the Catholic Church.

As I said to josie L, I quoted Lumen Gentium from the Vatican website, which deals with “submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”

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

This part can be true, but there is no rescript. That is, there is no penalty applied or given if we reject the teaching and/or document as there is with dogma, when the Pope speaks infallibly ( ex-Cathedra ).

Crazzeto said Lumen Gentium is an infallible teaching of Vatican II. Doesn’t that make “submission of mind and will to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” an infallible teaching?

As I’ve said before, I don’t remember hearing the Pope speaking ex-Cathedra on Lumen Gentum. I will have to check it out.

Yes, “submission of the will and mind…” would be an infallible teaching of the Magisterium ( and Pope ) when an infallible teaching ( dogma ) is presented. This is because our salvation is involved and a serious penalty would result otherwise.

Javl,

The document does read as Crazzeto said—as a strong exhortation to obedience. It is this strong exhortation to obedience to teachings that may change or be modified over time that concerns me. Which brings me back to whether or not I could “submit mind and will” to the Pontiff–a critical issue in considering Catholicism.

Anna

I understand your dilema, Anna, but keep in mind that unless it is dogma ( which is an infallible teaching ) it can be changed and it can change over time as we learn more. The submission of mind and will in this case is primarily in matters of faith and/or morals. Also
remember that the Pope is not only the Bishop of Rome and the “head” of the Church but that he has been given the authority of Christ and acts as His representative here on earth (Matt 16:13-19, Jn 21:15-19 ). In effect, when we listen to the Pope, we are listening to Jesus.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[josie_L]

JosieL,

This document deals with fallible teachings. I am asking how Catholics deal with fallible teachings. So, this is a quote which is appropriate to my questions.

First, I’ve tried to give you an explanation of what should be adhered to in my first post, but you never commented upon it, so a it’s a bit difficult to understand what you expect? Moreover, it is wrong to say “fallible” teachings just because they weren’t infallibly proclaimed, i.e., the usage of birth control is considered a sin not because it was infallibly proclaimed but because it violates the deposit of faith. The deposit of faith has three components: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church, neither one can conflict with the other, in fact, they are intertwined, here is a paragraph from the CCC:

" It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the Holy Spirit, they ALL contribute effectiviely to the salvation of souls."

Now do you see why I said what I originally said in my first post, i.e., you should submit your will and mind even to teachings not infallibly proclaimed because said teachings should be in accordance with the deposit of faith. If in the hypothetical instance the pope should write something that is not supported by Scripture and Tradition, then you should not follow such teachings. Here is another paragraph from the CCC on the Magisterium of the Church:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”

"Yet this magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.

So you see what is being taught should be drawn from this single deposit of faith, this would include the Pope as he too is bound to it.

p.s. A word of advice: if you wish to know about Catholicism read scripture, the early Church fathers, and the CCC (so that you can compare and contrast) first before you move on to more difficult terrain. Also, researching the matter will help reduce the headache of multiple opinions.

p.p.s There have been theological speculations in the past such as Limbo which the laity have never been expected to assent to, as such it is up to the believer to know when something is speculation rather than part of the deposit of faith.