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

[GKC]

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 which means we should give our assent (Javl mentioned this).

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 first will help reduce the headache of multiple opinions.

If the Code Of Canon Law might shed light on the subject, the relevant Canons are here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

GKC

 

[josie_L]

If the Code Of Canon Law might shed light on the subject, the relevant Canons are here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

GKC

Thank you GKC, you are very kind! I have however found this article (it took less than a second to find) on the Internet:

A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITY
Father John Trigilio​

ANY dogma is an INFALLIBLE doctrine, divinely & formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation. EXTRAORDINARY Magisterium is an EX CATHEDRA pronouncement of the Roman Pontiff (Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX) or a DE FIDE statement of an Ecumenical Council (Justification by the Council of Trent). ORDINARY Magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world. To capriciously say that ONLY EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIAL dogmas are infallible is FALSE and heretical. Lumen Gentium #25, Humani Generis #21, both solemnly teach on the supreme teaching authority of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM.

Some Catholics wrongly believe that ONLY “ex cathedra” Papal Statements are infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that ONLY the Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. Even Raymond Brown has abandoned this notion. Ergo, propositions like the one you mention, that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the B.V.M. is NOT infallible, are ridiculous. If in doubt, the BEST resource is Denziger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum. Next, is Ludwig Ott’s monumental work, “The Fundamentals of Dogma.” There, one can find the theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (DE FIDE) and those which are only theologically certain.

DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.

Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone.

Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.
2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.
3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church’s prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.
4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium #25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the ASSENT OF FAITH, they CANNOT be disputed nor rejected publicly and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, the body of believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that SENSUS FIDEI is that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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

You’re right, the Church has fudged on this one. An excess of ecumenical zeal.

The former doctrine was, there is no salvation outside of the Church. However, what the Church said in VII is, if I’m not mistaken, other faiths are open to salvation provided their intentions are sincere and blah, blah, blah and ultimately it’s up to God. Which is nothing new.

 

[GKC]

Thank you GKC, you are very kind! I have however found this article (it took less than a second to find) on the Internet:

A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITY
Father John Trigilio​

ANY dogma is an INFALLIBLE doctrine, divinely & formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation. EXTRAORDINARY Magisterium is an EX CATHEDRA pronouncement of the Roman Pontiff (Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX) or a DE FIDE statement of an Ecumenical Council (Justification by the Council of Trent). ORDINARY Magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world. To capriciously say that ONLY EXTRAORDINARY MAGISTERIAL dogmas are infallible is FALSE and heretical. Lumen Gentium #25, Humani Generis #21, both solemnly teach on the supreme teaching authority of the ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM.

Some Catholics wrongly believe that ONLY “ex cathedra” Papal Statements are infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that ONLY the Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. Even Raymond Brown has abandoned this notion. Ergo, propositions like the one you mention, that the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the B.V.M. is NOT infallible, are ridiculous. If in doubt, the BEST resource is Denziger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum. Next, is Ludwig Ott’s monumental work, “The Fundamentals of Dogma.” There, one can find the theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (DE FIDE) and those which are only theologically certain.

DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc.

Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone.

Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS:

1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.
2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.
3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church’s prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.
4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium #25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the ASSENT OF FAITH, they CANNOT be disputed nor rejected publicly and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, the body of believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that SENSUS FIDEI is that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.

Yep. That’s the way I understand it to be taught.

The theological degrees of certainty listed can be found, with more info, in Ott’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, pp. 8-10.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

If the Code Of Canon Law might shed light on the subject, the relevant Canons are here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

GKC

Actually, GKC this is perfect:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Not only rocky, but quite difficult.

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. . . . .

. . . .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:. . .

Thank you GKC, you are very kind! I have however found this article (it took less than a second to find) on the Internet:

A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITY
Father John Trigilio
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . .

Yep. That’s the way I understand it to be taught.

The theological degrees of certainty listed can be found, with more info, in Ott’s FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, pp. 8-10.

These are all very helpful. Thank you so much!!!

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

Thanks for your comments CHESTERTONRULES. I think I have a handle on it now. Long day.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

If the Code Of Canon Law might shed light on the subject, the relevant Canons are here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

GKC

Actually, GKC this is perfect:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

GKC’s link did clarify things in a concise way.

Anna

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde Rombola,

When I peal away all of the snide comments and avoidance of the issues, all that is left is your open disrespect for Pope John Paul II; and your disagreement with “the document” I cited, which happens to be “Lumen Gentium,” which Crazzeto said is an infallible teaching of Vatican II.

The word is spelled ‘peel.’

 

[GKC]

Actually, GKC this is perfect:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

I was hoping it might help.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC’s link did clarify things in a concise way.

Anna

I’m glad.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh Kate and I are probably not going to go that far. I think Orthodoxy is intimidating to me, so foreign, so mystical, and honestly I’m just freaked out to walk into such an ethnic group (NOT out of racism but out of sticking out like a sore thumb) being so obvious and different. But then again in the Catholic Church out here at our north side parish there is like one-two Anglos in a sea of Mexicans and that is probably more uncomfortable!

I’m not sure I buy into Orthodoxy when it comes to the Atonement, ignoring Augustine (one of my faves), and their views of Original Sin, etc. But I do admire the way they have kept to tradition and the mystical majesty of the Liturgy FAR better than the Catholic Church without all the social justice stuff, without the heresies right and left, and without being so uber canonical and systematic and top-heavy. I think they probably have a lot to offer if I can get up the guts someday…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

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

GKC is getting to much love today

I’m glad.

GKC

 

[GKC]

GKC is getting to much love today

I’m so irenic I can make your teeth hurt.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Oh Kate and I are probably not going to go that far. I think Orthodoxy is intimidating to me, so foreign, so mystical, and honestly I’m just freaked out to walk into such an ethnic group (NOT out of racism but out of sticking out like a sore thumb) being so obvious and different. But then again in the Catholic Church out here at our north side parish there is like one-two Anglos in a sea of Mexicans and that is probably more uncomfortable!

I’m not sure I buy into Orthodoxy when it comes to the Atonement, ignoring Augustine (one of my faves), and their views of Original Sin, etc. But I do admire the way they have kept to tradition and the mystical majesty of the Liturgy FAR better than the Catholic Church without all the social justice stuff, without the heresies right and left, and without being so uber canonical and systematic and top-heavy. I think they probably have a lot to offer if I can get up the guts someday…LOL

As I said…At dawn, look to the East.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That went RIGHT over my head for a minute LOL…gotcha…

But I don’t think Tolkien would approve of someone going to THAT East. He was more Catholic than a herd of popes in a golden scapular!

As I said…At dawn, look to the East.

GKC

 

[josie_L]

You’re right, the Church has fudged on this one. An excess of ecumenical zeal.

The former doctrine was, there is no salvation outside of the Church. However, what the Church said in VII is, if I’m not mistaken, other faiths are open to salvation provided their intentions are sincere and blah, blah, blah and ultimately it’s up to God. Which is nothing new.

Ferde, VII does not contradict “no salvation outside the Church”, please read Lumen Gentium and you will see that the Church states that if people should reach salvation outside of the Church then it is inspite of their religion not because of it, i.e., the Catholic faith is still the only truth there is because it is based on the teachings of the one true Church of Christ.

p.s. You must be more cautious Ferde with the things you say or you will confuse people if you don’t.

 

[GKC]

That went RIGHT over my head for a minute LOL…gotcha…

But I don’t think Tolkien would approve of someone going to THAT East. He was more Catholic than a herd of popes in a golden scapular!

True. But it fit.

GKC

 

[crazzeto]

Anna,

Truely terribly sorry, very poor choice of wording =( Won’t happen again!

What I was more trying to get at, is the issue of where the Authority is. Essentially, either the authority is "the bible it’s self’, i.e. private judgment, or it isn’t. From my perspective, this is a declaration, in clear terms, that the Magisterium rejects private judgment. It is not the job of the layity to judge authentic teaching, rather it is the teaching office of the Church.

God bless,

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…”

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

Anna

 

[1holycatholic]

Jesus was saying: “My church will be successful even if you are not.”

Obviously all popes are not infallible because at one time the Church taught only baptized Catholics will be saved. That was infallibly declared and now they make exceptions for non-Catholics.

The Church has always taught Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and has never taught the heresy of Fenneyism as you suggest.