Understand the Catholic Church

[Sabbath_Keeper]

I posted the following in the thread “When did the Church start worshipping on Sunday” as subject still in debate. However, as I did not want to go off topic any further then I already had and was still interested in gaining a further understanding of the RCC doctrines I decided to copy the original text and those responses that resulted from my posted understanding of RCC doctrine. So, here again is that list and the responses.

In Christ

If I may I would like to review some things I have learned in the forum, just for clarification and to insure my understanding of RCC teaching is correct.

1. The scriptures are to be used in conjuction with Tradition.
2. Tradition is that Apostolic knowledge passed down by word of mouth from the Apostles to the Church leaders throughout the ages since the beginning of the Church and is irrefutable.
3. All the Apostles were in agreement as to the teachings of Christ and therefore would not have diviated from those teachings.
4. The Traditional teaches were taught to all the Churches and is without question because of the position of the Apostles and has been protected by the HS.
5. The Pope is he that holds the seat of Peter, who was the first of all Popes.
6. The Pope, is his official capacity, is infallable and his words, while speaking in his official capacity, are the same as the Apostles.

I think that pretty much covers what I think the RCC teaches on these points. If I am in error please correct the errors for me and elaborate where I am wrong. Oh, and this may seem to be off subject, but I ask endulgence on this. I am just trying to get my thoughts in order and feel this would help. So please make your comments short. Thank you.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

From Gaunophore (I hope I spelt the right )

Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
If I may I would like to review some things I have learned in the forum, just for clarification and to insure my understanding of RCC teaching is correct.

1. The scriptures are to be used in conjuction with Tradition.
2. Tradition is that Apostolic knowledge passed down by word of mouth from the Apostles to the Church leaders throughout the ages since the beginning of the Church and is irrefutable.
3. All the Apostles were in agreement as to the teachings of Christ and therefore would not have diviated from those teachings.
4. The Traditional teaches were taught to all the Churches and is without question because of the position of the Apostles and has been protected by the HS.
5. The Pope is he that holds the seat of Peter, who was the first of all Popes.
6. The Pope, is his official capacity, is infallable and his words, while speaking in his official capacity, are the same as the Apostles.

I think that pretty much covers what I think the RCC teaches on these points. If I am in error please correct the errors for me and elaborate where I am wrong. Oh, and this may seem to be off subject, but I ask endulgence on this. I am just trying to get my thoughts in order and feel this would help. So please make your comments short. Thank you.

I think this is a pretty good summary, and I want to commend you for your gleanings. It shows an openness of mind to learn.

However, # 6 above is incorrect. The Pope, even in his offical capacity, is not infallible in his words.

Also, please be aware that none of the statements you have made here, though Catholic, are “Roman”. The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church share these beliefs with the Latin Rite, which happens to be the most common here in the West.

---

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

My response

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
I think this is a pretty good summary, and I want to commend you for your gleanings. It shows an openness of mind to learn.

However, # 6 above is incorrect. The Pope, even in his offical capacity, is not infallible in his words.

Also, please be aware that none of the statements you have made here, though Catholic, are “Roman”. The other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church share these beliefs with the Latin Rite, which happens to be the most common here in the West.

Only way to get to the truth is to be open to it, where ever it may come from.

I have a few questions to ask concerning these points but would like a few more assertions to what I have posted before continuing. So, everyone, please respond. Thank you

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Patrick Murebil’s Response

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
If I may I would like to review some things I have learned in the forum, just for clarification and to insure my understanding of RCC teaching is correct.

At a quick read I would agree with guanophore that your understanding is correct, with the exception of #6. regarding infallability as guanophore pointed out.

I will just add a brief thought to each of your points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper

1. The scriptures are to be used in conjuction with Tradition.

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
2. Tradition is that Apostolic knowledge passed down by word of mouth from the Apostles to the Church leaders throughout the ages since the beginning of the Church and is irrefutable.

This forum is full of threads providing Catholic teachings that are constantly being refuted. Christian teachings, in general, in the world are constantly refuted. And I mean this in the sense of someone denying that an assertion made by someone else is ture, not in the sense of the assertion being provable or unprovable. Having said that, then yes I believe you understand the Catholic position on this matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
3. All the Apostles were in agreement as to the teachings of Christ and therefore would not have diviated from those teachings.

I have not personally verified ALL of the apostles compliance or deviation from Christ’s teachings, and must confess to you that I am awaiting something from you that might show otherwise based on your use of the word “all”…but maybe I’m reading too much into your words, and if I am, I apologize. Or maybe it’s just time for me to take a nap!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
4. The Traditional teaches were taught to all the Churches and is without question because of the position of the Apostles and has been protected by the HS.

Yes…but still wonder about the use of the word “all”…and again, I apologize if reading too much into your words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
5. The Pope is he that holds the seat of Peter, who was the first of all Popes.

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
6. The Pope, is his official capacity, is infallable and his words, while speaking in his official capacity, are the same as the Apostles.

See quanophore’s response to this above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabbath Keeper
I think that pretty much covers what I think the RCC teaches on these points. If I am in error please correct the errors for me and elaborate where I am wrong. Oh, and this may seem to be off subject, but I ask endulgence on this. I am just trying to get my thoughts in order and feel this would help. So please make your comments short. Thank you.

I really do admire (and appreciate) your accurate summarizing of your understanding of the Catholic beliefs as you have done above, even if you don’t agree with them…well…especially if you don’t agree with them. It is a great lesson for all of us to learn and use in the process of dialog!

God bless all!!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

My response to Patrick

Originally Posted by Patrick Murebil

I have not personally verified ALL of the apostles compliance or deviation from Christ’s teachings, and must confess to you that I am awaiting something from you that might show otherwise based on your use of the word “all”…but maybe I’m reading too much into your words, and if I am, I apologize. Or maybe it’s just time for me to take a nap!

Point being that the Apostles were all together with Christ at the beginning before and after his crucifixion and resurrection, all but Judas. He taught them for 40 days after his resurrectiona and before his assencion. It can therefore be concluded that the Apostles, at that time all understood Christ’s teachings and understandings, they were in agreement and therefore would not have diviated from what Christ had taught. This is mean when the term “all” is enjoined on this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Murebil

Yes…but still wonder about the use of the word “all”…and again, I apologize if reading too much into your words.

Again, being in agreement the Apostles, though seperated from one another, when founding the individual “congregations” in the various communities throughout the Roman Empire would not have diviated from what Christ had taught. So “all” the churches would have obtained the same instructions that the Apostles had received from Christ. The term “all” retains the same meaning as that of the point concerning “all” the Apostles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Murebil

See quanophore’s response to this above.

I’m not sure what the term is but it basically mean, “While sitting in Peter’s seat in the official capacity of the Head of the Church”. It is only at this time that the Pope is considered “infallible” because it is at that time that the HS guides the Pope to make the correct dicisions for the Church.

I believe the doctrine or Dogma concerning Infallibility can be found in the documents related to Vatican I of 1870.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Murebil
I really do admire (and appreciate) your accurate summarizing of your understanding of the Catholic beliefs as you have done above, even if you don’t agree with them…well…especially if you don’t agree with them. It is a great lesson for all of us to learn and use in the process of dialog!

God bless all!!!

As I stated before, Only way to get to the truth is to be open to it, where ever it may come from.

In Christ

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

And finally Patrick’s final response to me. Of which I decided to start this thread. If there are anymore opinions to be presented on my understanding please feel free to submit them. Thank you.

Thank you for your clarifications SK!

Sooooooo, having looked through the previous posts, I would say that the OP question has been answered…and that is after the resurrection when the apostles met and broke bread/worshipped/celebrated the Lord’s supper…and the Church has not ceased worshipping on Sunday to this very day!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

As there does not seem to be any objections to my understanding of the six points I posted then I will go to my next topic to gain further understanding of what is meant in the RCC by Tradition and tradition.

Apparently there are two types of “tradition”, that which the RCC states that was handed down by the Apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and that which is of man and opposed to the truth of God (Col. 2:8).

Seeing that there is a difference in traditions, it would seem that it would be necessary to insure that the properness of tradition be assured. How, therefore, do we do this? It would seem fitting that some sort of test be performed upon what is taught as Tradition and what is thought to be tradition. The question therefore must be asked and answered, “Would the Apostles have taught anything verbally that they had put down in writing to the Churches?” or “Would their writings have contridicted what they taught verbally and vis a versa?”

We see in the second letter to the Thessalonians that Paul reiterates in his writing of the letter that which he had already spoken to them 2 Thess. 2:5. It is therefore conceivable that he has done the same in other letters as well, either having written a letter reemphasising the points made to an already visited church or to lay ground work in a church he is planning to visit, I.E. the church in Rome.

Do I have concensous on this point so far?

 

[Ruthie]

Big-T Tradition is one of the three parts of the Deposit of Faith. It is the teachings of the Apostles that were handed down by word of mouth, but did not get written in the Bible. (The other two parts are the Bible, and the teachings of the Magisterium.)

Small-t tradition is the ordinary kind of tradition, such as the American tradition of eating turkey on Thanksgiving and corned beef and cabbage on St. Patrick’s day. They are hard to change, but are still changeable.

I want to make sure you understand Papal infallibility. Most (including some Catholics!) don’t. An infallible teaching is a rare thing. It has to meet strict criteria. And it is an awesome responsibility, to be exercised with only the utmost care.

That’s why, since the doctrine of Papal infallibility was promulgated at Vatican I, there have been many Popes, but only *two *infallible teachings.

HTH,

Ruthie

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

6 would be correct if you included the words “in matters of faith and morals”.​

Papal infallibility does not include matters of mathematics, science, ect. It does not mean that the Pope will never make a mistake.

It is what is called a “negative protection.” It keeps him from speaking erroniously in matters of faith and morals.

It means that he will never teach something that is opposed to God’s truth.

It also doesn’t mean that he will always speak at all-he may remain silent.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Big-T Tradition is one of the three parts of the Deposit of Faith. It is the teachings of the Apostles that were handed down by word of mouth, but did not get written in the Bible. (The other two parts are the Bible, and the teachings of the Magisterium.)

Referring to post #7, knowing therefore that there were both T and t traditions, and that the Traditions were passed down by the Apostles by word of mouth, would these teachings have been contridictory to those that WERE written down?

I want to make sure you understand Papal infallibility. Most (including some Catholics!) don’t. An infallible teaching is a rare thing. It has to meet strict criteria. And it is an awesome responsibility, to be exercised with only the utmost care.

That’s why, since the doctrine of Papal infallibility was promulgated at Vatican I, there have been many Popes, but only *two *infallible teachings.

HTH,

Ruthie

This is interesting. What two teachings were these and which Popes were responsible for them?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

6 would be correct if you included the words “in matters of faith and morals”.​

Papal infallibility does not include matters of mathematics, science, ect. It does not mean that the Pope will never make a mistake.

It is what is called a “negative protection.” It keeps him from speaking erroniously in matters of faith and morals.

It means that he will never teach something that is opposed to God’s truth.

Thank you for the clarification. Does infallibility go all the way back to the beginning or , since it was only recognized since Vatican I, does it only apply to the Popes since 1870, when it was recognized?

 

[LilyM]

Not quite correct - there are two instances in which the Pope is UNANIMOUSLY agreed to have made an infallible pronouncement (ie fulfil all the criteria). Meaning there are only two unanimously-agreed-upono infallible pronouncements made by Popes.

The two Papal teachings are:

The Immaculate Conception of Mary - proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in the document ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ in 1854

The Assumption of Mary - proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in the document ‘Munificentissimus Deus’ in 1950.

There are others on which the agreement is sufficiently universal, though not unanimous, that they should be accepted as infallible - such as John Paul II’s ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ declaring that the Church is incapable of ordaining women as priests - which is pretty clearly expressed as and intended to be infallible teaching, but which diehard supporters of womens’ ordination choose to close their ears to.

It must be remembered that the charism of infallibility is ALSO, however, exercised by Church councils, and there are many many pronouncements of infallible teaching that have been made by these over the millennia, such as the doctrine of Papal Infallibility itself, developed by the First Vatican Council.

Note the Papal pronouncements were all made after the development of the doctrine of infallibility by Vatican I, but infallibility didn’t begin as of that date, all teachings throughout Church history (even those made before the doctrine of PI was declared) which meet the criteria, can be taken to be infallible.

 

[Gara3987]

I posted the following in the thread “When did the Church start worshipping on Sunday” as subject still in debate. However, as I did not want to go off topic any further then I already had and was still interested in gaining a further understanding of the RCC doctrines I decided to copy the original text and those responses that resulted from my posted understanding of RCC doctrine. So, here again is that list and the responses.

In Christ

If I may I would like to review some things I have learned in the forum, just for clarification and to insure my understanding of RCC teaching is correct.

1. The scriptures are to be used in conjuction with Tradition.
2. Tradition is that Apostolic knowledge passed down by word of mouth from the Apostles to the Church leaders throughout the ages since the beginning of the Church and is irrefutable.
3. All the Apostles were in agreement as to the teachings of Christ and therefore would not have diviated from those teachings.
4. The Traditional teaches were taught to all the Churches and is without question because of the position of the Apostles and has been protected by the HS.
5. The Pope is he that holds the seat of Peter, who was the first of all Popes.
6. The Pope, is his official capacity, is infallable and his words, while speaking in his official capacity, are the same as the Apostles.

I think that pretty much covers what I think the RCC teaches on these points. If I am in error please correct the errors for me and elaborate where I am wrong. Oh, and this may seem to be off subject, but I ask endulgence on this. I am just trying to get my thoughts in order and feel this would help. So please make your comments short. Thank you.

With Tradition it is not just word of mouth, it has been written thus you have dogma and cannon law, the Saints and Fathers of the Church wrote there teachings also. What many seem to miss is the fact that not all the Apostles wrote their teachings and gospels down, this was done by their disciples, Tradition is very important and is in the Scriptures as well (II Thess. 2, 14). Saint John even says that the bible is incomplete (John 21, 25). There is also Divine Tradition and Ecclesiastical Tradition mode of transfers would be objective tradition and active tradition. As for the pope being infallible, the only Pope that was truly infallible was Saint Peter, outside of that the Pope is not infallible, the Church is infallible though. The Pope has to go through certain procedures to claim infallibility when he wishes to make a declaration.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Not quite correct - there are two instances in which the Pope is UNANIMOUSLY agreed to have made an infallible pronouncement (ie fulfil all the criteria). Meaning there are only two unanimously-agreed-upono infallible pronouncements made by Popes.

The two Papal teachings are:

The Immaculate Conception of Mary - proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in the document ‘Ineffabilis Deus’ in 1854

The Assumption of Mary - proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in the document ‘Munificentissimus Deus’ in 1950.

There are others on which the agreement is sufficiently universal, though not unanimous, that they should be accepted as infallible - such as John Paul II’s ‘Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’ declaring that the Church is incapable of ordaining women as priests - which is pretty clearly expressed as and intended to be infallible teaching, but which diehard supporters of womens’ ordination choose to close their ears to.

It must be remembered that the charism of infallibility is ALSO, however, exercised by Church councils, and there are many many pronouncements of infallible teaching that have been made by these over the millennia, such as the doctrine of Papal Infallibility itself, developed by the First Vatican Council.

Note the Papal pronouncements were all made after the development of the doctrine of infallibility by Vatican I, but infallibility didn’t begin as of that date, all teachings throughout Church history (even those made before the doctrine of PI was declared) which meet the criteria, can be taken to be infallible.

Nice explanation, however, you do not lay out the criteria that would deem a “teaching” as infallible. What are those and how are the used?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

With Tradition it is not just word of mouth, it has been written thus you have dogma and cannon law, the Saints and Fathers of the Church wrote there teachings also. What many seem to miss is the fact that not all the Apostles wrote their teachings and gospels down, this was done by their disciples, Tradition is very important and is in the Scriptures as well (II Thess. 2, 14). Saint John even says that the bible is incomplete (John 21, 25). There is also Divine Tradition and Ecclesiastical Tradition mode of transfers would be objective tradition and active tradition. As for the pope being infallible, the only Pope that was truly infallible was Saint Peter, outside of that the Pope is not infallible, the Church is infallible though. The Pope has to go through certain procedures to claim infallibility when he wishes to make a declaration.

So therefore each of these should agree with one another and there should be no dicrepencies as to doctrine or teachings as they have all been passed down from the Apostles from the beginning, correct?

 

[LilyM]

So therefore each of these should agree with one another and there should be no dicrepencies as to doctrine or teachings as they have all been passed down from the Apostles from the beginning, correct?

No - there ARE no discrepancies. Christ’s Truth is one, although that truth is expressed through the three different media of scripture, magisterium and Tradition. People, being for the most part fallible and limited in their understanding, will think there are discrepancies, but this is a result of lack of comprehension and not because there is actual discrepancy.

Nice explanation, however, you do not lay out the criteria that would deem a “teaching” as infallible. What are those and how are the used?

You may like to read the article on infallibility at newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

You need to scroll down a bit to get to where it discusses the Pope in particular. Note Denziger’s definition, based on Vatican I:

“the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is … possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; …”

So there seem to be three main criteria, mostly defined in a negative sense (ie what they are not) rather than positively:

1. exercising his office as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians (in other words speaking as Pope rather than as a theologian among others, political figure, football fan or what have you)
2. defining a doctrine of faith and morals - intending such definition to be final and authoritative. So not merely speaking on something exclusively political, or discussing football, weather or anything else. Nor speaking on matters merely of Church discipline or canon law, which are designed to be temporary and changeable, whereas faith and morals of course are not, nor speaking only in a speculative rather than authoritative sense. And
3. defining such doctrine to be held by the whole Church . Again, precludes disciplines and canon laws which often only apply to certain sectors of the faithful (priests, for example, or Eastern Catholics who have their own Code of Canon Law).

How to see how papal infallibility works in practice? Well, there’s no better way than by reading an infallible document. There are usually clues in the wording such as at the end of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (my emphases and annotations):

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed [the Pope intends to speak with finality on the issue] regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself [the Pope clarifies that this is on a matter of faith and morals], in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) [he reminds us that he speaks as the successor of St Peter, aka as Pope] *** I declare ***that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful [here the Pope expresses the binding and universal nature of his declaration].”

And in other instances a document may be expressed negatively to NOT be intended as an exercise of infallibility, as Pope Benedict states at the beginning of his recent book Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

No - there ARE no discrepancies. Christ’s Truth is one, although that truth is expressed through the three different media of scripture, magisterium and Tradition. People, being for the most part fallible and limited in their understanding, will think there are discrepancies, but this is a result of lack of comprehension and not because there is actual discrepancy.

And again, this means that all would agree and that there are no contridictions in any of these, one against the other. This is my understanding.

You may like to read the article on infallibility at newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

You need to scroll down a bit to get to where it discusses the Pope in particular. Note Denziger’s definition, based on Vatican I:

“the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra – that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church – is … possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; …”

So there seem to be three main criteria, mostly defined in a negative sense (ie what they are not) rather than positively:

1. exercising his office as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians (in other words speaking as Pope rather than as a theologian among others, political figure, football fan or what have you)
2. defining a doctrine of faith and morals - intending such definition to be final and authoritative. So not merely speaking on something exclusively political, or discussing football, weather or anything else. Nor speaking on matters merely of Church discipline or canon law, which are designed to be temporary and changeable, whereas faith and morals of course are not, nor speaking only in a speculative rather than authoritative sense. And
3. defining such doctrine to be held by the whole Church . Again, precludes disciplines and canon laws which often only apply to certain sectors of the faithful (priests, for example, or Eastern Catholics who have their own Code of Canon Law).

How to see how papal infallibility works in practice? Well, there’s no better way than by reading an infallible document. There are usually clues in the wording such as at the end of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (my emphases and annotations):

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed [the Pope intends to speak with finality on the issue] regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself [the Pope clarifies that this is on a matter of faith and morals], in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) [he reminds us that he speaks as the successor of St Peter, aka as Pope] *** I declare ***that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful [here the Pope expresses the binding and universal nature of his declaration].”

And in other instances a document may be expressed negatively to NOT be intended as an exercise of infallibility, as Pope Benedict states at the beginning of his recent book Jesus of Nazareth.

Got it, so if the Pope is not speaking or writting directly concerning the official doctrines of the Church than it is not considered infallible. Thank you.

 

[reteeks21]

And again, this means that all would agree and that there are no contridictions in any of these, one against the other. This is my understanding.

Got it, so if the Pope is not speaking or writting directly concerning the official doctrines of the Church than it is not considered infallible. Thank you.

But when is he not speaking or acting in that capacity? I thought he was always on the clock.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

But when is he not speaking or acting in that capacity? I thought he was always on the clock.

Confusing, isn’t it? (Sorry, I shouldn’t have said that. )

Actually, what I understand is that it’s like when we go to work, at work we are doing the job we are assigned or were hired to do. But when we go home, or go do some other private activity, we leave the job behind. After all, the Pope has to have some personal time to kick back and enjoy the things God has given him. So, when he’s doing these things, he’s basically, OFF THE CLOCK. Does that about sum it up?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

The following was posted on the leading thread for this one. I copied it and am posting it here for the sake of continuity.

Well, you are close. the HS guides the pope daily to make correct decisions for the church. When he makes a pronouncement from the seat of Peter, proclaiming a matter of faith and morals from and toward the whole church, then the proclamation is considered infallible.

I believe we now have a complete explanation of Papal Infallibility.

Thank you all for your assistance.