Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom
Based on the variety of opinion about Catholicism we see just here on FR, there are 1.2 billion flavors of Catholic belief. After all, we keep being told that whatever is not infallibly defined is up for grabs about how binding it is on the faithful and whether they have to accept and believe it or not.

See exasperated response by poster on Catholic forums discussing this:

rr1213 Oct '06

itsjustdave1988: It is not official Catholic teaching that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is inerrant or an exercise of infallible teaching authority. However…

Direct and positive infallibility pertain to teachings which are “of faith” (de fide) and as such without error and immutable. But there’s another sense of infallibility, called indirect and negative infallibility. This sense does not connote immutability, but pertains to whether the object is harmful or dangerous to the faithful. If I erroneously assert 2+3=7, I’ve made an error, but I have not asserted something that is necessarily harmful to my faith.

Infallibility in the indirect and negative sense pertains to the protection of God given to approved ecclesiastical discipline. It is affirmed by Pius VI condemnation of the Jansenist proposition that approved ecclesiastical discipline can be harmful or dangerous to the faithful (cf. Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei, *78).

Thus, according to P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

See more on disciplinary infallibility, here.

So, it appears that although general disciplinary norms may not be “the best,” given the contemporary situation, and therefore not immutable, they are always protected by God such that they can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful*. *

From this, it is my opinion that this Divine protection necessarily includes Catholic doctrine. That is, since canon law is infallible in the indirect and negative sense, and since canon law demands religious assent to the doctrines of the Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops in union with him, then it follows that religious assent to this doctrine can not be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, even if such doctrines are not proclaimed solemnly, definitively as de fide.

Consequently, the doctrines described within the Catechism of the Catholic Church as universally taught by the magisterium can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, and as such, are infallible in the indirect and negative sense.

rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/30

The response to which is just obey everything:

Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis.

Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31

Got it?

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

340 posted on 11/18/2017 4:46:41 PM PST by daniel1212 (Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + folllow Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212

Ayeesh. My eyes started crossing about five seconds into trying to read that twisty turny explanation.

Seems to me that Roman Catholic teaching—according to the last three paragraphs—boils down to, “We’re ALWAYS right, even when we’re wrong, so shut up and give us your money.”


345 posted on 11/18/2017 5:09:30 PM PST by Luircin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212

They don’t know what to believe.

They can pick and choose what they like or not.

Cafeteria Catholics.

The current item on the menu that nobody here seems to like is the current pope.

But others think he’s the best thing since sliced bread.


349 posted on 11/18/2017 5:38:30 PM PST by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson