Posted on 03/23/2007 5:54:47 PM PDT by NYer
Some people assure us: 'there are very few infallible teachings. In fact, the bolder spirits claim there are only two! Or again: 'We may disagree with noninfallible teachings after prayerful reflection.' Or take a third statement like: 'God speaks to us in many ways: through conscience, Scripture, the Church, life experience, nature'-without any indication of where the Magisterium stands in the matter. People talk also of a parallel magisterium consisting of the theologians.
Because of the great confusion prevailing today concerning the doctrinal authority of the Church and how it is exercised, it is vital that Catholics clarify their thoughts on the subject. If we have a right understanding here, our total theological outlook is likely to be balanced; if we do not it will certainly be warped.
We find the basis in Scripture. At the Last Supper, Jesus told his Apostles: 'The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you (Jn. 14, 26). 'When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth' (Jn. 16,13).
The twelve Apostles were chosen by Jesus to shepherd his Church, with St. Peter as the supreme leader. 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' (Mt. 16, 1819).
St. Paul, knowing that the truth would remain in the Church, speaks of 'the Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe' (1 Tim. 3, 15). Although individuals go astray, therefore, the Church will not. This ecclesial aspect is important, as indicated by St. Peter in his warning: 'we must be most careful to remember that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual' (2 Pet. 1. 20).
Christian writers of the fist and second centuries show a Church with a hierarchical structure, having power to teach and rule, a bishop being in charge of each community.
The fourth Pope, St. Clement, wrote a long letter to the Church in Corinth about A.D. 96, endeavoring to settle dissensions there. He states: 'Our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop. In their full knowledge of this, therefore. they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of. and they went on to add an instruction that if these would die, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office (Corinthians, no. 44).
St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Church in Smyrna about A.D. 107 exhorts them: 'Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father' (Smyrneans, no. 8).
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and the great opponent of Gnosticism in the second century, insists on the need to follow the Church's bishops if we are to have the truth. 'It is necessary to obey the presbyters in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father' (Adv. Haereses, IV, 26, 2).
Irenaeus names all the Bishops of Rome down to his own time, and says: 'In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us' (111, 3, 3).
The constant understanding through the ages that the Pope and bishops are the authentic teachers of the Faith was emphasized by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (rune, 1973). 'By divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the Successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ shared in different ways; so that the faithful, who may not simply listen to them as experts in Catholic doctrine, must accept their teaching given in Christ's name, with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.'
Nothing here about a parallel magisterium composed of theologians! Mysterium Ecclesiae, in accordance with the whole of Tradition, sees bishops as those who teach authentically in Christ's name.
The first Vatican Council, in 1870, declared that all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed' (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. 3).
One of the most important sections in the whole of the documents of Vatican II is no. 25 in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, where the teaching authority of the Church is outlined. Concerning the bishops, the document says: 'Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's Successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teachings concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.'
Their infallible authority is exercised in the clearest way when they assemble in a General Council and, together with the Pope, define a matter of faith and morals. 'Assembled in an Ecumenical Council they are, for the Universal Church, judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.'
Repeating Vatican I, the Pope is declared to be infallible when, as supreme teacher of the faithful, 'he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.'
Having said that the faithful must adhere to the bishops' teachings on faith and morals, the Council continues: 'This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him.'
The substance of the above doctrine from Vatican II is repeated in the Code of Canon Law, Canons 749752.
Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.
By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)
The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church's teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.
The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise, the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world' (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.
What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.
We started by noting common attitudes to the Church's teaching. Let us now evaluate those views, beginning with the claim that there are few infallible teachings.
Actually there is a very large number, as we might expect when we recall that the Church has existed for nearly 2000 years and that numerous disputes about doctrine have raged during that long and turbulent period. Infallible definitions have been given about our knowledge of God. about his nature, about the Blessed Trinity, about creation, angels, man, grace. the fall, redemption, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Church. the sacraments in general and each sacrament in particular, our Lady, heaven, hell, purgatory, the general resurrection, the final judgment. Quite a number of infallible pronouncements have been made in some of these areas; and this list is not complete.
I flipped through Ludwig Ott's standard text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma to see how many points he classifies as infallible, and my rough count was about 250!
Why, then, the preposterous notion that de fide pronouncements may be as few as two (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption)? I am sure the root cause of the error is the propaganda spread by dissident theologians against the Church's authority. One ploy is to concentrate on ex cathedra definitions of the Popes, and to stress that there are few of these; leaving people with the impression that there are no infallible pronouncements apart from these.
What about the claim, noted at the beginning, that we may disagree with noninfallible teachings after prayerful reflection'?
We have seen that Vatican II insists on the acceptance of teachings given by the ordinary Magisterium, even though they are not infallible. We have seen too that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in Mysterium Ecclesiae, said the faithful must accept the teaching of the Pope and bishops 'with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.'
Canon Law states the position in these plain words: 'While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the The Church 's Magisterium
College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by a definitive act (Canon 752).
'Isn't it a bit much,' some people will object, 'to be expected to believe what may not be true?' The Pope and the College of Bishops however, in making their decisions, are not left to their own resources, but are specially aided by the Holy Spirit The result is that when a firm decision is promulgated on a matter concerning faith or morals (even though the conditions for an infallible definition are lacking), there is such an overwhelming presumption in favor of its truth that confident assent to it is justified, although this falls short of the absolutely unconditional assent due to an infallible pronouncement.
Another statement calling for comment, and mentioned at the beginning of this article. is that God speaks to us in many ways including conscience, the Church, life experience, nature. This kind of remark seems to put the Church on the same level as other ways of arriving at the truth. In fact she is unique, for God preserves her from error.
This practice of downgrading the teaching Church leads on to the notion of a parallel magisterium comprised of theologians. But once we realize that the Pope and bishops comprise the Church's true Magisterium, for the Holy Spirit guides them in a way he does not guide anyone else, we see that theologians who classify themselves as part of a parallel magisterium are setting themselves up in opposition to the Holy Spirit.
The Magisterium is a wonderful gift from God. Faithfulness to it will preserve us from intellectual slavery to trendy theology, personal prejudices, secularism, and all the other forces that threaten to rob us of the truth.
In 2 Timothy, Paul writes from prison in Rome, to Timothy. Timothy is somewhere in "Asia" (what we would call Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey). In 1 Timothy, it's clear he's in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3). 2 Timothy doesn't specify his location, but Ephesus is a fine starting point.
What do we read in 2 Tim 4:11 ...
2 Tim 4:11 Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.
Got it? Paul commands Timothy to bring Mark to Rome.
Now look at 1 Pt 5:13 ...
1 Pt 5:13 13 She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.
Mark is in Rome. Paul called him there. Mark is also with Peter. Where is Peter? Peter's in Rome, exactly where his bones remain to this day.
Then where is it? Point it out, show us the way. You can't. Who came after Timothy and Titus? If you invent history, at least have something to trace to today. You can't. History is not on your side. Funny, Ireneaus and Polycarp followed Peter and Linus, and they were disciples of John. Guess that puts John in the Peter camp by your logic of course.
I was just making an imagine response to your great comment. Sorry for the confusion.
Linus and Clement were Catholics who followed Paul and Timothy (Paul mentions both of them in his letters), but don't let that stop you from inventing silly strawmen all over the place.
There you go...And there's your Catholic church...
You forgot to mention that a significant number of Christians did NOT treat Clement's epistles as Holy Scripture...Ever...And these became the 'heretics' your church brazenly writes about...
You and Campion are putting up a great fight. Great stuff.
Well, if you want to claim Pelagians as True Christians, go right ahead. If you want to claim Gnostics, go right ahead. If you want to claim Arians, go right ahead. You can have them.
Get a clue, friend. You're now well down the road toward inventing imaginary history to slander us. Stick to the truth if you want to persuade.
You'll note that Catholic Bibles don't include Clement's epistle any more than Protestant Bibles do.
Nobody was ever called a heretic for failing to treat Clement's letter as Scripture, or for doing so.
And it was the Catholic church, at councils in the late 4th and early 5th century, which ultimately determined that Clement's epistle should be excluded from the canon, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because Clement was not an apostle. (The title of "apostle" being restricted to those who had seen the risen Jesus and had been personally commissioned by him.)
Well....Mark is mentioned in scripture 5 times; [Acts 12:12;12:25;15:37; and 15:39] and additionally in [2 Timothy 4:11-13]. In Timothy Paul says Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
The verses in Timothy are the only verses in the New Testament speaking of Mark in the sense that he would be going to Rome. Paul is in prison for the second time, writing Timothy, asking that he go and get the scrolls and parchments he left at Troas. These were evidently left there when Paul was arrested the second time and now he knows his time is short and is asking Timothy to go and get Mark also because he knows that Mark is in possession of Peter's letters, as well as Mark's (Peter's) gospel. Paul was evidently attempting to gather all letters, epistles and gospels for posterity, knowing that Timothy and Mark would see to it they found their way to John. Paul does not say this, but there is a good likelihood that Peter has already passed at this juncture. Paul remembers Timothy's tears in verse 1:3-4, perhaps as Paul is being dragged away by Roman soldiers.
So.....what you are saying is that Timothy goes and gets the parchments and the scrolls to bring to Paul in Rome. He sidetracks to get Mark because Paul mentions that Mark had been helpful to him....and it is your conclusion that Peter also comes along secretly..... because no one mentions his name with regard to this endeavor. Paul by this time is in possession of the Book of Matthew, Jude and would have the Book of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.....because, as he says in verse 4:11....only Luke is with me! That he had all of the writings of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms goes without question. Strange that we hear no mention of the name of Peter.
There is no prior mention of Mark being anywhere close to.... or in and about Rome. There is also no mention of Peter being anywhere in or about Rome. Your clue is Balderdash!
Sorry Camp, I don't mess with those Catholic edited bibles...I stick with the one that's not part of that group...
and then the rest of the known world at the time relied on the catholic church and her adherents, i.e. monks, etc, to painstakenly hand copy the manuscripts for future generations...
Obviously that's not at all an accurate statement...Since the majority of the available manuscripts are not your Catholic manuscripts...Other than Catholics painstakingly hand copied their manuscripts as well...
And it was the Catholic church, at councils in the late 4th and early 5th century, which ultimately determined that Clement's epistle should be excluded from the canon, not because there was anything wrong with it, but because Clement was not an apostle.
It took them 300 years to figure that out??? But by then your church fathers had established a religion based on Clement's writings as well as their own that mimicked Clement's stuff...
Our Lord Himself tells the Twelve not to go among the Gentiles [Matthew 10:5]. Was Rome a Gentile city? Of course it was. The Twelve were told to go to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel (the circumcised) instead. (verse 6). Paul was chosen as the Apostles to the Gentiles [Acts 9:15] and he clarifies it further in [Galatians 2:7] by stipulating that he, not Peter, was selected to evangelize the Gentiles.
You can spin it anyway you want....but you cannot deny the plain words of scripture.
I suppose you didn't hear about the crucified skeleton found beneath the Altar of St. Peter's? Or was that a vile forgery of the Roman Church?
It was a Simon alright....but not the one you wish it to be.
btt
LOL, I see. So, how do you deal with ACTS where Peter does go amongst Gentiles. Or was that a mistake?
And yes, it's the right Peter, keep dreaming.
Arguing history with someone intent on inventing it has become pointless. You have invented a history that no scholar, no text, no evidence supports. That's pretty sad. Then, as Cardinal Newman, "Those who become steeped in History, cease to be Protestant."
Still looking forward to your take on John 6.
In 2 Timothy, Paul writes from prison in Rome, to Timothy. Timothy is somewhere in "Asia" (what we would call Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey). In 1 Timothy, it's clear he's in Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3). 2 Timothy doesn't specify his location, but Ephesus is a fine starting point.
So....Paul asks Timothy to go and get the scrolls and the parchments at Troas in the northwestern section of Asia minor. He may be writing to Timothy at Ephesus...Timothy may be somewhere else. Paul asks him to greet Priscilla and Aquila (verse 4:19) who had been companions of Paul in one of his journeys. Aquila was from Pontus [Acts 18:2]. Peter's ministry included Pontus [1 Peter 1:1-2] to folks with the foreknowledge of God. In other words....non Gentiles....Israelites, (circumcised folk)[Galatians 2:7]. Pontus was in the north of Asia Minor along the southern shores of the Black Sea. Timothy may have been here. If he was it would be no problem to pick up Mark as he had been there with Peter....evangelizing the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel [Matthew 10:5].
The estimate for the date of the 1 Epistle of Peter is around 64 A.D. and the estimate for the book of Timothy is around 67 A.D. while Paul is languishing in prison. But you say that Mark is already in your (coded word Babylon) "Rome" with Peter while Paul is asking for him to come to Rome 3 or 4 years later.
It doesn't wash! The scriptures disagree with your theory. Peter was told to evangelize the Israelites...the circumcised. Paul was chosen to go to Rome [Acts 23:11] And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. No such command was ever given to Peter!
The bones in Rome belong to Simon "Pator" Magus.
Can you be specific?
Reading the Church Fathers you will see that Simon Magus is spoken of being in Rome much more than they mention Simon Peter. When Justin Martyr wrote [152 A.D.] his Apology, the sect of the Simonians appears to have been formidable, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon; and we need not doubt that he identified him with the Simon of the Acts. He states that he was a Samaritan, adding that his birthplace was a village called Gitta; he describes him as a formidable magician, and tells that he came to ROME in the days of Claudius Caesar (45 A.D.), and made such an impression by his magical powers, THAT HE WAS HONORED AS A GOD, a statue being erected to him on the Tiber, between the two bridges, bearing the inscription ‘Simoni deo Sancto’ (i.e., the holy god Simon)" (Dictionary of Christian Biography, Vol. 4, p. 682)
Those are your bones!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.