What is a 'dogmata necessaria'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glorthac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glorthac

Guest
Howdy, I’m a candidate for confirmation who is going to a (sadly) very liberal parish, and at RCIA they’ve always presented the idea that you can be Catholic, and yet still deny any Catholic teaching so long as you’re even slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching.

I went to my local library, and checked out Dr. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” and it says that there are ‘dogmata necessaria’ which “must be explicitly believed by all in order to achieve eternal salvation”.

So I did some online research, and I couldn’t find a thing about ‘dogmata necessaria’. Can yall help? I got yelled at on the Apologetics section of this forum by a liberal, so I’m asking here.
 
Glorthac said:
Howdy, I’m a candidate for confirmation who is going to a (sadly) very liberal parish, and at RCIA they’ve always presented the idea that you can be Catholic, and yet still deny any Catholic teaching so long as you’re even slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching.

I went to my local library, and checked out Dr. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” and it says that there are ‘dogmata necessaria’ which “must be explicitly believed by all in order to achieve eternal salvation”.

So I did some online research, and I couldn’t find a thing about ‘dogmata necessaria’. Can yall help? I got yelled at on the Apologetics section of this forum by a liberal, so I’m asking here.
Click to expand...
I’m a bit confused by your question. What is unclear about Ott’s definition? Or is it that you are asking for examples of necessary dogmas?
 
Explicit faith is required in the existence of God and the belief of him as a Rewarder of each according to ones works. These are the necessary dogmas required “by all”. Christians are also required to have explicit faith in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the necessity of grace and the immortal soul.

Some theologians used to insist that all six, or at least the first four, were required by all people to attain salvation but in view of the problems this posed for the salvation of “virtuous pagans”, the system above was more commonly adopted.
 
What a fascinating logical paradox: you can be Catholic, and yet still deny any Catholic teaching so long as you’re even slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching.

Now … what … if … you are slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching on ***that ***and deny it?

Think about it.
 
DianaCC said:
What a fascinating logical paradox: you can be Catholic, and yet still deny any Catholic teaching so long as you’re even slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching.

Now … what … if … you are slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching on ***that ***and deny it?

Think about it.
Click to expand...
That’s not a paradox. The outcome is simply that you are mistaken at both the base and meta levels. To compare, going to Mass on Ash Wednesday is not a requirement. But what if you think it is? Oh wait, that still doesn’t make it a requirement, not even for you individually. In any event, the “doctrine about doctrines” is certainly not dogma necessarium.
 
Gregory_I said:
Try this link:

Denzinger, a collection of Catholic Dogmas and Doctrines:

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma.php
Click to expand...
Just for clarification: the Denzinger Enchridion Symbolorum is a collection of the some documents of the Magisterium. It was collected originally by Cardinal Denzinger, together with a similar collection for the writing of the Church Fathers (Enchiridion Patristicum) and the indexed Scriptures (Enchiridion Scripturorum) .

Later they were expanded and represented sourcebook for theologians, the latest edition was 1954 (I believe, in my copy the copyright page is missing). Here is in Latin: localhost/www/Denzinger/Latin.html

Most of the content of the Enchiridion Symbolorum is theological opinion only. The book itself is valuable for the indices (systematical and alphabetical) which unfortunatelly are not part of the above websites.
 
MarkThompson said:
That’s not a paradox.
Click to expand...
Yet I think it is. For if it’s true that uninformed denial is compatible with Catholic identity, then uninformed denial of that principle means you believe uninformed denial disqualifies people from being Catholic. But if you believe this, you are uninformed, and therefore must believe yourself disqualified. But you cannot know you’re uninformed; therefore in your own mind, you cannot know whether you are qualified or disqualified.
 
Glorthac said:
Howdy, I’m a candidate for confirmation who is going to a (sadly) very liberal parish, and at RCIA they’ve always presented the idea that you can be Catholic, and yet still deny any Catholic teaching so long as you’re even slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching.

I went to my local library, and checked out Dr. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” and it says that there are ‘dogmata necessaria’ which “must be explicitly believed by all in order to achieve eternal salvation”.

So I did some online research, and I couldn’t find a thing about ‘dogmata necessaria’. Can yall help? I got yelled at on the Apologetics section of this forum by a liberal, so I’m asking here.
Click to expand...
Dogmata Necessaria, is any belief defined as dogmatic by the Catholic Church, such as the assumption of Mary, Papal infallibility, the trinity etc
 
DianaCC said:
Yet I think it is. For if it’s true that uninformed denial is compatible with Catholic identity, then uninformed denial of that principle means you believe uninformed denial disqualifies people from being Catholic. But if you believe this, you are uninformed, and therefore must believe yourself disqualified. But you cannot know you’re uninformed; therefore in your own mind, you cannot know whether you are qualified or disqualified.
Click to expand...
That’s true as far as it goes, but the phrases I’ve highlighted serve to show that these concerns simply don’t matter in any respect. It is completely irrelevant whether you “believe yourself disqualified” from being Catholic – this is not something that each person decides for himself by sheer force of will.
 
Glorthac said:
Howdy, I’m a candidate for confirmation who is going to a (sadly) very liberal parish, and at RCIA they’ve always presented the idea that you can be Catholic, and yet still deny any Catholic teaching so long as you’re even slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching.

I went to my local library, and checked out Dr. Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” and it says that there are ‘dogmata necessaria’ which “must be explicitly believed by all in order to achieve eternal salvation”.

So I did some online research, and I couldn’t find a thing about ‘dogmata necessaria’. Can yall help? I got yelled at on the Apologetics section of this forum by a liberal, so I’m asking here.
Click to expand...
For a compendium (though not exhaustive) of dogmata necessaria see the Apostles’ Creed.

Now as to “the idea that you can be Catholic, and yet still deny any Catholic teaching so long as you’re even slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching.” If you think this is arrant nonsense, you are absolutely right. Just to begin with, even if you, a Catholic, could lawfully deny a settled Catholic teaching (which you can’t), ignorance would render you incompetent to do it. Even where an issue is not closed for debate, how can an opinion based on ignorance ever count for anything? It’s nuts to think anything authoritative can ever proceed from ignorance.

Plus, ignorance can only excuse wrongdoing (in this case, dissenting from Catholic doctrine) to the extent you are ignorant through no fault of your own. If you are willfully ignorant, or negligently ignorant, then your ignorance does not get you off the hook. And once your ignorance is cured, you are bound in conscience to abandon any erroneous view and embrace the truth.
 
It does not need to be de fide to be a mortal sin to deny. It can be sentitia Proxima, or Sentitia Certa, the doctrine in question that is, and still as mortal sin to deny it.
 
DianaCC said:
Yet I think it is. For if it’s true that uninformed denial is compatible with Catholic identity, then uninformed denial of that principle means you believe uninformed denial disqualifies people from being Catholic. But if you believe this, you are uninformed, and therefore must believe yourself disqualified. But you cannot know you’re uninformed; therefore in your own mind, you cannot know whether you are qualified or disqualified.
Click to expand...
We are responsible not only for what we know, but for what we ought to know. In other words, there is a moral obligation to form one’s conscience. A person’s culpability with respect to ignorance is ultimately a matter of the internal forum. You can formulate all the hypotheticals you want; the reality is that each person will face judgment alone. Philosophical arguments will avail nothing.

AMDG
jsa
 
MarkThompson said:
That’s true as far as it goes, but the phrases I’ve highlighted serve to show that these concerns simply don’t matter in any respect. It is completely irrelevant whether you “believe yourself disqualified” from being Catholic – this is not something that each person decides for himself by sheer force of will.
Click to expand...
Right. So then if I accuse someone of no longer being Catholic if he supports abortion or gay marriage, then I have excommunicated myself in my own mind.
 
laszlo said:
Most of the content of the Enchiridion Symbolorum is theological opinion only. The book itself is valuable for the indices (systematical and alphabetical) which unfortunatelly are not part of the above websites.
Click to expand...
There are around 2,340 paragraphs in the English translation of the Enchiridion Symbolorum. Would you take a guess as to what percentage of those paragraphs is mere “theological opinion”?

Creeds and professions of faith, ecumenical decrees and canons, papal bulls and encyclicals, decisions of the Pontifical Congregations… where does “theological opinion” fit in among those types of documents?
40.png
Glorthac:
At RCIA they’ve always presented the idea that you can be Catholic, and yet still deny any Catholic teaching so long as you’re even slightly ignorant as to the correct teaching.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect.

"There are various ways of sinning against faith:

“Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness. Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 2088-89).

You should not deny a teaching which you do not fully understand. Instead, you should read the CCC, or even the Baltimore Catechism to acquire a good understanding of Church teaching. Dr. Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is another good book to learn Church teaching, as its a bit more thorough in its explanation of doctrine (e.g, showing support from Scripture and the Church Fathers and Doctors).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top