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.
I know its a lot, but I would use Acts 10. My Bible (NAB - I hate the translation, but it is well used/worn), identifies the section as "The Inauguration of the Gentile Mission."
As for Simon Magus, yes he was in Rome, as for the bones being his or Simon Peter's, I don't think we will ever agree on that. Arguing further, will do neither of us any good.
Let me know what you think about Acts 10.
Acts 10 of course deals with Peter's vision and subsequent trip to see Cornelius. As I have said, Peter and the other eleven had been commissioned to Evangelize the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel(The Circumcised)[Matthew 10:5-6] and were told to stay away from the Gentiles.
First of all Peter, was not evangelizing Cornelius. [Acts 10:1-2] There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band. A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. Cornelius was already a man of God. Peter was being sent on an errand by the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:19-23] to show the way for the Gentiles to salvation!
Now, let's stop and think about this for a minute. Peter has just been shown a vision by the Holy Spirit which tells him to call no man unclean [Acts 10:28]. He is now being told that he is to go to the house of Cornelius because the Gentiles are not unclean either and are being called to salvation. This is taking place after Paul's conversion [Acts 9] which would place this in time at least three years after the crucifixion....minimum! Don't you think it strange that Peter is unsure about this, hesitant in a manner if The Lord had commanded these Twelve to evangelize the Gentiles ..... as you love to quote [Matthew 28:19] in error?
If this ministry to the Gentiles was common knowledge among the church at this point in time, why do we read this? [Acts 10:45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Why do we also read this: [Acts 11:1-3] And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
I'll explain this to you.....it was because the Twelve Apostles, now Eleven plus Matthias, had been told to stay away from the Gentiles and not enter into any of the cities of the Samaritans [Matthew 10:5-6], but evangelize the lost Sheep of the House of Israel. That's why they were astonished and had such a difficult time with this new concept......and that's why the Apostle Paul was called...[Acts 9:15] But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. Peter, nor any of the other eleven, were ever given this command.....and that's why you will never find Peter in or about Rome.
That says it all in my opinion. The words of Jesus.
You are correct. Paul was the 12th Apostle, chosen by Christ, the Apostle to the Gentiles, which even Paul himself didn't fully grasp as is evidenced by his continual references in his letters to his ardent desire to return to Jerusalem as an Apostle to the Jews.
Oh no we heard and we've been laughing along with everyone else who heard. Are you referring to Pius XII's Peter bones under the Vatican that turned out to be those of two men in their 50's, a woman in her 70's, a pig, a horse and a chicken? I would love to have seen that crucifixion and burial --- obviously they got the group rate.
Or are you referring to Peter bones of Paul VI that turned out to be those of a shorter [5 feet and 7 inches tall] and younger [age 60 to 70] Peter, that three of the four archeologists involved claimed could not possibly have been the bones of Simon Bar Jonah.
Or is there another set of Peter bones that the magisterium have dug up in that pagan cemetery under the Vatican???
Or have you forgotten about the ossuary of Simon Bar Jonah discovered in 1953 at the monastery of Dominus Flevit there in Jerusalem? Those are the real bones of Peter the Apostle aren't they?
Peter's bones were never in Rome at all and that fact of history is the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the magisterium of the RCC.
Get real. If Mark was in Rome with Peter, why would Paul be asking Timothy to bring him to Rome???
But if Mark had been with Peter in Babylon [on the Euphrates] and had subsequently returned to Jerusalem or Antioch together, then the request makes sense.
And of course you know full well and so has the Vatican for 50 years that the bones of Peter the Apostle rest in that ossuary at the monastery of Dominus Flevit on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem where they were discovered by two Catholic priests in 1953. Right?
When is the magisterium going to come clean and announce that discovery to the millions still flocking to St Peters Basilica to worship them funny [or phony] bones dug up out of that pagan graveyard under the Vatican? When hell freezes over or when it is full???
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
[Sure, these verses(among many) illustrate that Christ would provide His people with a source of the truth of Revelation and this conduit would be His Church]
2Timothy:
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
[note]
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (and especially)
All SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The church is the people that believe all scripture is true and abide in the truth of the scripture, they are saved sinners and not a denomination of Christianity.
But Cornelius was a Gentile. (I might be confusing you with Iscool, my apologies if I am making the wrong argument to the wrong person).
If you feel confident enough to invent history, go right ahead. It's a little amusing. Perhaps the Sword of Damocles is over your head.
In retrospect I realize my response was to brief. You argued that Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles. No disagreement here. But then you argued that Peter and the other 11 Apostles did not go to the Gentiles. Yet Acts 10 has Peter going to a Gentile, Cornelius, albeit one who recognizes the True God. Yet if you read the end of Acts 10, Peter has been with and experienced Gentiles touched by the Holy Spirit. Peter has indeed preached to the Gentiles. That eliminated that argument about Peter and Rome that you made prior.
Who needs to "invent" history when truth is more amusing than fiction. You remember these reports from catholic digest on the two sets of bones, don't you:
"In response to mounting demand, however, Pius finally permitted rigorous scientific examination of the bones in 1956. It emerged that the remains were actually bones of three different people, along with scores of animals. Of the humans, two were men in their 50s, and one was a woman in her 70s. Clearly, these were not the fisherman’s bones." http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html
"As this disappointment unfolded, another scholar, Margherita Guarducci, worked to decipher some strange graffiti found on a necropolis wall. One day in 1952, she inquired about a nearby cavity, the one previously emptied by Kaas. Segoni, still laboring away on the project, led her to the bones he’d placed in a storeroom years before. She made nothing of them, simply recommending that the specialists take a look.
"A decade later, those bones were identified as those of a man 5 feet 7 inches tall, of heavy build, age 60 to 70. The hollow of the bones contained soil, suggesting they had lain in a bare earth grave. Stains suggested the bones had been wrapped in a purplish, gold-threaded cloth.
"In the meantime, Guarducci pieced together a partial inscription by the cavity as Petros Eni, which in ancient Greek could mean “Peter is within.” The bones gathered from the cavity by Kaas, she concluded, must be those of Peter – moved out of the tomb 1,800 years ago, perhaps during a persecution.
"Guarducci presented her theory to Paul VI in 1964. After additional tests, the pope was convinced, despite dissent from three of the original four archaeologists. Paul announced that the bones of Peter had been identified “in a manner which we believe convincing.” On June 27, 1968, Paul reinterred them, stored in 19 Plexiglas cases, in Peter’s tomb." http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200105052a.html
So Peter was only 5 feet 7 inches tall and only 60 to 70 years old when he died??? A younger and shorter version of the Peter of legend. And only 1 of the 4 original archeologists concurred with Paul's decision. That's about par for the course, I guess.
Well Chip. Let's see, you said the bones belong to a pig or a horse. Yet here it is the bones of a man. Hmm, I guess if throw enough s--t at a wall, something might stick. Interesting tactic. Perhaps you aren't aware, but the Vatican is built on a Necropolis. And the site where Peter's bones were found was a memorial to St. Peter.
As for only 1 of 4 Archaelogists agreeing that the bones are Peter's, that's par for the course. That doesn't mean they aren't Peter's, merely the case wasn't proven enough for the other 3. The graffiti found at the site would indicate that the Early Christians of the 1st Century, did in fact believe Peter was there and buried at that site. Perhaps Peter was shorter than we "legend" has it. Perhaps Peter was younger than "legend" has it. I hope your faith isn't built on Legend. You can't claim that legends are false and can't be used, and then turn around as use legend to build point. That is patently dishonest. Then again, perhaps you come from the Boettner and Chick school of Church History, in which dishonesty is the only policy.
My argument is and always has been....the Twelve were not called to the Gentiles....and in fact were specifically told to stay away from them. In Acts 10 we see Peter hesitantly obeying the Holy Spirit and going to see Cornelius. All were astonished at the outcome of this visit and some Apostles even criticized Peter [Acts 11:2-3].
During this time Paul is not mentioned but has already experienced his conversion [Acts 9]. It had been announced immediately to Ananias [Acts 9:15] that Paul would be the one to carry the name of Jesus to the Gentiles. Can you imagine the shock of receiving this information....by the disciples? Paul then spends some time in Damascus and Jerusalem but has to flee for his life as the Jews are plotting to kill him [Acts 9:19-31] and is finally sent home to Tarsus by the disciples. Most of them (Christians) still did not trust him (verse 26).
Enter Peter and the Holy Spirit's mission to Cornelius.
Peter had been respected [Acts 5:15] and the Church grew quickly [Acts 2:40] but something had been brewing [Acts 6:1]. Division entered the early church between the Hebrew speaking Jews and the Greek speaking Jews.[Acts 6:8-10] The Greek Jews (Alexandrian) had turned on Stephen [Acts 6:8-10] and had attempted to kill Paul [Acts 9:29].
Now we have Paul pronouncing his intent to evangelize the Gentiles, and because of his prior reputation is it a wonder anyone in the Church trusted him? The Church was already being weakened because of the internal strife and now they had to deal with Gentiles....also?
This is when the Holy Spirit decided to get Peter involved....as a bridge between the Jews and Gentiles. Paul was evidently having great difficulty with his ministry and needed the support of the Jews (non Alexandrian). When the Holy Spirit showed Peter that no man was considered unclean the word traveled quickly. This had to help Paul in his ministry...but the original Eleven...and Matthias still had their own ministry and it did not include the Gentiles. This was left to Paul and hundreds of others.
We even notice....years later, Paul criticizing Peter for his continued Anti-Gentile stance [Galatians 2:11-14] and hypocrisy. This is biblical proof that Peter did not carry on a gentile ministry....particularly....to Rome!
Yes, Peter did visit Cornelius, a Gentile....a man of God, but his mission, along with the Eleven, was to the House of Israel. His letter is addressed to them [1 Peter 1:1-2] and other Apostles also address them specifically. [James 1:1]
As a Jew he would always have difficulty with gentiles. The animosity between gentiles and Jews was enormous of this period. Even Peter could have struggled with those prejudices, that does not mean that he was unable or did not rise about it to preach to them, as exemplified by Cornelius.
Sorry man, but you are on your own. The frustration is too great, I am just going to walk away. I was rather uncharitable in one of my recent posts, a sign that I need to step away. May God bless you with others to build up and defend the Church.
It is interesting that Paul had been given a much broader area of responsibility than the others. [Acts 9:15-16] But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.
Paul did evangelize the Gentiles [Acts 13], Kings [Acts 24, 25, and 26] and the Jews [Acts 28:17-25]. Peter and the original had been given a commission to go only to the house of Israel.
You mean this one?
Should of course read "Peter and the original Eleven" had been given a commission......
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.