What must be believed?

[gtrenewed]

None of the Apostles was innocent, all having abandoned Christ at His arrest and torture. Only Peter sought to defend Him, but wrongly with the sword. Jesus sought testimony in His defense, rather than physical conflict. And Peter, as poorly as he behaved with the Judaozers, did not teach error, but acted in error. Paul challenged only Peter’s behavior. This is a foundation-less argument used by some non-Catholics against Peter’s primacy.

As well, it is a parallel to Jesus advising His disciples to obey the teaching of the Pharisees, who held Moses’ seat, but not to do what they did, since they were hypocrites (Exodus 18:13, Matthew 23:2-3).

Whoa! How did you get there from my post?

I said people are flawed but that the Holy Spirit protects His church.

The scriptural example I used showed Peter’s flaw but that the council of Jerusalem, including Peter, were guided by the Holy Spirit.

A post script, the debate is not on the primacy of Peter but on the supremcy of Peter. That is for another thread.

 

[po18guy]

Whoa! How did you get there from my post?

I said people are flawed but that the Holy Spirit protects His church.

The scriptural example I used showed Peter’s flaw but that the council of Jerusalem, including Peter, were guided by the Holy Spirit.

A post script, the debate is not on the primacy of Peter but on the supremcy of Peter. That is for another thread.

Point is that Peter did not teach error, since he was protected, even in his sin, from doing so. His bad behavior had nothing to do with the teaching of the Church.

 

[Michael_N_1]

I think the answer to my question about there being people who do not follow or accept the Church’s actual teaching was something like this:

Pray for those people, but don’t listen to them, because they just don’t see, and there’s no possible way that they are right.

Have I got it right?

 

[theden]

I think the answer to my question about there being people who do not follow or accept the Church’s actual teaching was something like this:

Pray for those people, but don’t listen to them, because they just don’t see, and there’s no possible way that they are right.

Have I got it right?

Michael,

Regarding people in any teaching capacity, you should always pray for them–that they are truly led by God. If they lead people astray, they will bear judgement by God.

Now, regarding what you are taught, if you are taught something and it doesn’t “sound” right, you should verify it with the Catechism.

Peace,

Dennis

 

[gtrenewed]

Point is that Peter did not teach error, since he was protected, even in his sin, from doing so. His bad behavior had nothing to do with the teaching of the Church.

Never said that Peter taught error. You are really reading into what is not there.

However, a case could be made that by his example he was teaching error to those that saw him avoiding the gentiles and joined in with him, (Gal 2:13). That is why Paul corrected him so sharply.

Yet, when he was in the council and the council was considering faith issues, they were guided by the Holy Spirit. And in that we can trust what the councils have given us.

 

[po18guy]

Never said that Peter taught error.

Not exactly, no. But you did say:

but the council as a whole was guided as a group by the Holy Spirit.

I took from this that Peter erred but the council did not. Consider that we are not informed in scripture of others’ errors - only Peter’s.

Personal behavior vs. teaching from Peter’s See. Two entirely separate things. As intended, correct?

 

[dcdurel]

To answer the first question, “What must be believed”

The answer is everything the Church teaches.

How do we know what the Church teaches?
Whenever the Bishops and the Pope teach together, as in a council, or in a Catechism, or whenever the Pope teaches by himself as head of the whole Church and his teaching is directed to the whole Church.

These teachings are also infallible.

And the Pope is also infallible in these teachings, when he teaches by himself.

There are two types
If they are clear explanation of some doctrine of faith or morals to be definitely held, and he is teaching as the head of the Church, this is called an Ex Cathedra teaching.

If he is not clearly giving a thorough explanation of some doctrine of the faith, but he is just repeating some matter, over and over as an extension to the faith, and we see he is clearly intending to teach , then divine assistance is also given and this is ordinary teaching and it is infallible.

This is taught in the Catechism below, where the Catechism describes the two types of teachings, the first in regards to clear explanations concerning the deposit of faith, and the second are the ordinary teachings which may include extensions to the deposit of faith.

890
To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

1. “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.[418] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”[419] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”[420] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[421] † ©
2. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”[422] which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Notice in 892 he is not arriving at an infallible definition and it is not pronounced in a “definitive manner”, thus it is not necessarily directly part of divine revelation, but is is an extension of divine revelation. Since divine assistance is also given in this case the Pope is still teaching infallibly.

Thus infallibility is given in both extraordinary teachings and ordinary teachings.

 

[Robert_Burns]

This is a pretty basic question, or at least I used to think so.

What exactly must someone believe to be a faithful Catholic? I had the idea that whatever the Church taught must be believed, and was infallible. But when has the Church “taught” something? I have a friend in RCIA (she’s in RCIA, I’m not) who told me that there are only two things that have ever been declared infallibly, the Assumption and something else (I forgot). Obviously those are not the only things one must believe in to be Catholic. Everyone would agree (I hope) on the Resurrection, etc., etc.

This becomes an issue when it is claimed … well … the priest apparently believes in “supremacy of conscience”, that is, that you ought to go with your conscience if you believe that the Church is wrong. In this case, the issue is homosexuality.

Surely this doesn’t make sense, in my understanding. Can someone shed some light?

You have to adhere to all the Dogmas defined by the Church and there are many more than two. The Trinity - the Sacraments - Grace - Justification - The immaculate Conception - the Assumption - the Infalliblity of the Pope - the Commandments and Precepts of the Church - Heaven - Hell - Purgatory What constitutes a Mortal and Actual Sin - Etc.

As for the Supremacy of Conscience - that is not true. Almighty GOD alone is Supreme. Man must relate to GOD , not the reverse. Christ is King - man is servant. GOD Gives mankind Commandments - the Church - the Clergy and his grace to overcome all temptation. Homosexuality is a mortal sin in Thought in Word and in Deed always.

pax

 

[po18guy]

To answer the first question, “What must be believed”

The answer is everything the Church teaches.

How do we know what the Church teaches?
Whenever the Bishops and the Pope teach together, as in a council, or in a Catechism, or whenever the Pope teaches by himself as head of the whole Church and his teaching is directed to the whole Church.

These teachings are also infallible.

And the Pope is also infallible in these teachings, when he teaches by himself.

There are two types
If they are clear explanation of some doctrine of faith or morals to be definitely held, and he is teaching as the head of the Church, this is called an Ex Cathedra teaching.

If he is not clearly giving a thorough explanation of some doctrine of the faith, but he is just repeating some matter, over and over as an extension to the faith, and we see he is clearly intending to teach , then divine assistance is also given and this is ordinary teaching and it is infallible.

This is taught in the Catechism below, where the Catechism describes the two types of teachings, the first in regards to clear explanations concerning the deposit of faith, and the second are the ordinary teachings which may include extensions to the deposit of faith.

890
To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

1. “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.[418] When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,”[419] and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.”[420] This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[421] † ©
2. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”[422] which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Notice in 892 he is not arriving at an infallible definition and it is not pronounced in a “definitive manner”, thus it is not necessarily directly part of divine revelation, but is is an extension of divine revelation. Since divine assistance is also given in this case the Pope is still teaching infallibly.

Thus infallibility is given in both extraordinary teachings and ordinary teachings.

Amen! If we have a conflict with the teaching, the problem is in us and not the Church.

 

[paul_c]

I’d like to add one more concept into the discussion: the difference between Chruch Doctrine (what it teaches on faith and morals) and Church Practice (how it administers Doctrine to the faithful).

Church doctrines are eternal truths on faith and morals that no one can change. These teachings have been stable from the time Jesus taught them to the Apostles until now.

Church practice, however, not only can change but must change with the times to help the church fulfill its mission to spread the Gospel and administer the sacraments. This includes how the church is administered and also how it is taught. Vatican 2 changed no doctrines but made major changes to Church practice, particularly in the liturgy. This was done to make the church more accessible to the faithful. There are of course debates that in doing so, it also lost some of its inherent mystery, but that’s beside the point. If the Magesterium decides to change it back, there are are no impediments because it does not effect doctrine.

Much of what is argued about in the church actually has to do with Church Practice, and this is fair game to discuss and debate. But Church doctrine, what it teaches on faith and morals, is non-negotiable for a Catholic. Knowing the difference between the two is important. John Paul II declared that a male priesthood is doctrine because the priests are standing in for Jesus. However, having a celibate priesthood is a church practice in the Latin Church that is occasionally dispensed. However, although the Catholic church COULD allow married priests, it choses not to for pastoral reasons. It is our obligation as Catholics to accept the judgment of the magesterium…

 

[gtrenewed]

Not exactly, no. But you did say: I took from this that Peter erred but the council did not. Consider that we are not informed in scripture of others’ errors - only Peter’s.

Peter agreed with the council based on his testimony. He spoke correct doctrine following his incorrect behavior.

It is irrelevant what is not in scripture about others. I’m not anti-Peter. I honor him very much. After all he was chosen by Jesus to be a leader which is pretty heady stuff. I love it that he was chosen in spite of his flaws, it gives all of us hope.

Personal behavior vs. teaching from Peter’s See. Two entirely separate things. As intended, correct?

Generally, yes I agree. However it could be stated that incorrect personal behavior in certain circumstances could be seen as agreeing with a bad teaching.

Peter by separating himself from christian gentiles in accordance with jewish law could be interpreted as supporting the necessity for christian gentiles to follow the law.

However, by his testimony in the council he espoused correct teaching concerning christian gentiles and the law. So while he erred, he obviously stopped that behavior following Paul’s rebuke and taught properly.

Bottom line concerning this area of scripture is we can trust that the Holy Spirit guides the church teaching as Jesus promised.

 

[paul_c]

You know, I view this whole episode differently. Paul complained in Galatians that Peter had seperated himself from the gentile Christians when in the presence of the Jewish Christians and he said he confronted him with it. I think at the time Paul wrote that letter, he didn’t have a clear appreciation for the concept of being all things to all people in order to win souls that he later espoused in his letters. Later, in fact, he even had Timothy circumcised so as not to offend the Jewish Christians. I think Peter, being older and more experienced, recognized this point earlier than Paul…

 

[gtrenewed]

You know, I view this whole episode differently. Paul complained in Galatians that Peter had seperated himself from the gentile Christians when in the presence of the Jewish Christians and he said he confronted him with it. I think at the time Paul wrote that letter, he didn’t have a clear appreciation for the concept of being all things to all people in order to win souls that he later espoused in his letters. Later, in fact, he even had Timothy circumcised so as not to offend the Jewish Christians. I think Peter, being older and more experienced, recognized this point earlier than Paul…

Peter was in the company of jewish believers so that scripture does not apply. Peter was separating himself from other christians just because they were not jewish but gentile.

“Being all things” excludes sin. What Peter was doing was hypocrisy and changing the gospel according to Paul.

Timothy was from jewish-gentile parents. He wasn’t circumcised as a youth and his circumcision did not have to do so much with Timothy being accepted but with Paul being accepted because of his past. Since Timothy was part of Paul’s group and since he was from a jewish mother, Paul knew that it would be a stumbling block to some so he preemptively took away the objection.

Two different contexts.

 

[Bookcat]

This is a pretty basic question, or at least I used to think so.

What exactly must someone believe to be a faithful Catholic? I had the idea that whatever the Church taught must be believed, and was infallible. But when has the Church “taught” something? I have a friend in RCIA (she’s in RCIA, I’m not) who told me that there are only two things that have ever been declared infallibly, the Assumption and something else (I forgot). Obviously those are not the only things one must believe in to be Catholic. Everyone would agree (I hope) on the Resurrection, etc., etc.

This becomes an issue when it is claimed … well … the priest apparently believes in “supremacy of conscience”, that is, that you ought to go with your conscience if you believe that the Church is wrong. In this case, the issue is homosexuality.

Surely this doesn’t make sense, in my understanding. Can someone shed some light?

There are not just 2 infallible things…not by a long shot!! (but I can understand …some are confused on that)…but not everything that has to be professed is infallible…many things are…and many things are not…but one still needs to give assent…

Here this summarizes what kind of assent needs be given to what as a Catholic:

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
You know, I view this whole episode differently. Paul complained in Galatians that Peter had seperated himself from the gentile Christians when in the presence of the Jewish Christians and he said he confronted him with it. I think at the time Paul wrote that letter, he didn’t have a clear appreciation for the concept of being all things to all people in order to win souls that he later espoused in his letters. Later, in fact, he even had Timothy circumcised so as not to offend the Jewish Christians. I think Peter, being older and more experienced, recognized this point earlier than Paul…

I think you misunderstand the dynamics of the time. Many of the Jewish Christians still held to the Jewish ceremonial laws which kept them from sociallizing with the Gentile Christians. Peter didn’t want to offend them.

“Being all things” excludes sin. What Peter was doing was hypocrisy and changing the gospel according to Paul.

What sin did Peter commit? The council of Jerusalem stated that Gentile Christians didn’t need to follow the Jewish Ceremonial laws but it absolutely did not force the Jewish Christians to go against their own consciences and start eating non-kosher foods, for instance. They could if they wanted to but were not forced to do so. Paul called this hypocracy at the time, but later I believe he was more in tune with the wisdom of Peter’s actions.

Timothy was from jewish-gentile parents. He wasn’t circumcised as a youth and his circumcision did not have to do so much with Timothy being accepted but with Paul being accepted because of his past. Since Timothy was part of Paul’s group and since he was from a jewish mother, Paul knew that it would be a stumbling block to some so he preemptively took away the objection.

Two different contexts.

Same context, Paul was preemptively taking away a Jewish Christian objection, just as Peter had done when he ate Kosher with the Jewish Christians because he also knew that the Jewish ceremonial laws needed to be followed for some of the Jewish Christian community.

 

[po18guy]

From Catholicism for Dummies written by Fr. John Trigilio PhD, ThD, and Fr. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD:

**“In other words, when the Pope reinforces, reiterates, or restates the consistent teaching of his predecessors and of the Bishops united with him around the world, that’s considered the Ordinary Magisterium and should be treated as infallible doctrine”

“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra papal statement, but it’s part of the Ordinary Magisterium, and thus, according to the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the teaching is infallible”**

The Ordinary Magisterium is the regular, normal teaching authority of the Church. Plainly stated, the catechism is not a simple collection of made-up teaching.

 

[Bookcat]

There are not just 2 infallible things…not by a long shot!! (but I can understand …some are confused on that)…but not everything that has to be professed is infallible…many things are…and many things are not…but one still needs to give assent…

Here this summarizes what kind of assent needs be given to what as a Catholic:

ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM

This is by the way not an article to read …but a great Summary in sort of a nice chart form.

 

[gtrenewed]

I think you misunderstand the dynamics of the time. Many of the Jewish Christians still held to the Jewish ceremonial laws which kept them from sociallizing with the Gentile Christians. Peter didn’t want to offend them.

It was more than not wanting to offend…Gal 2:11-12 "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision."

What sin did Peter commit? The council of Jerusalem stated that Gentile Christians didn’t need to follow the Jewish Ceremonial laws but it absolutely did not force the Jewish Christians to go against their own consciences and start eating non-kosher foods, for instance. They could if they wanted to but were not forced to do so. Paul called this hypocracy at the time, but later I believe he was more in tune with the wisdom of Peter’s actions.

Galations continues 2:13-14 "The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy (sin), with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy (causing others to stumble). But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel (sin), I said to Cephas in the presence of all,“If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Same context, Paul was preemptively taking away a Jewish Christian objection, just as Peter had done when he ate Kosher with the Jewish Christians because he also knew that the Jewish ceremonial laws needed to be followed for some of the Jewish Christian community.

No, it is different context…Acts 16:3 “Paul wanted this man (Timothy) to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews (not necessarily christian jews) who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was Greek.”

I say not christian because in verse 2 “and he was well spoken of by the brethren (jews and gentiles) who were in Lystra and Iconium.”

And in verse 4 it says that Paul was delivering the decrees for them to observe decided on in Jerusalem by the apostles and elders. That is justification by faith and not works of the law.

So Peter, a Christian Jew, was a leader living like a gentile but then stopped ( not wisdom but fear) when apparantly important Christian Jews came from Jerusalem. Timothy was the son of a Greek father and Jewish mother who was well regarded by all Christians, Jews and Gentiles, in the area and Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him and in the hopes of converting the Jews who knew Timothy, he circumcised Timothy. The context are completely different.

Galatians goes on to say…verses 15-19, “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
v.16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
v.17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!
v.18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. (this is what Peter was doing by first eating with gentiles and then withdrawing among the Jews)
v.19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.”

 

[Michael_N_1]

Thank you to everyone who answered my original question, I am happy that the world has people who actually believe in something besides their own judgment – people who admire and adhere to the Church for what it claims to be / is, rather than trying to make it into something else.

Now you are all discussing something else, which is interesting but which I do not understand very well, so I won’t try to respond to it.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c

I’m aware of what Paul wrote. What Paul might have seen as fear of the Jewish Christians, Peter might have seen as simply being respectful to them in order to win their souls for Christ.

Originally Posted by paul c

.

No, it is different context…Acts 16:3 “Paul wanted this man (Timothy) to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews (not necessarily christian jews) who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was Greek.”

I say not christian because in verse 2 “and he was well spoken of by the brethren (jews and gentiles) who were in Lystra and Iconium.” And in verse 4 it says that Paul was delivering the decrees for them to observe decided on in Jerusalem by the apostles and elders. That is justification by faith and not works of the law.

So Peter, a Christian Jew, was a leader living like a gentile but then stopped ( not wisdom but fear) when apparantly important Christian Jews came from Jerusalem. Timothy was the son of a Greek father and Jewish mother who was well regarded by all Christians, Jews and Gentiles, in the area and Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him and in the hopes of converting the Jews who knew Timothy, he circumcised Timothy. The context are completely different. I don’t think the difference was as big as you do. Peter didn’t want to offend Jews who were Christians. Paul didn’t want to offend Jews who might become Christian

Galatians goes on to say…verses 15-19, “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;
v.16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
v.17 But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!
v.18 For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. (this is what Peter was doing by first eating with gentiles and then withdrawing among the Jews)
v.19 For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.”

you added to scripture here…