CathInfo.com

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: saintbosco13

Quote from: Stubborn

Catechisms are books, they, unlike Scripture, are not an infallible expression of the Church's teachings whether they've been approved and used for 100s of years and have the endorsements of saints or not, does not change that fact. They are in fact a text book - and if in them, there is something that  the Church has spoken of in a contrary way, then the catechism has to be corrected. That's all there is to it and people should not make scandal if someone points out some inadequacy in a book.

Stubborn, what you state directly above is completely fabricated. Nowhere does the Church teach what you just stated. I challenge you to show me something from the Church that supports what you just stated. I will instead show you something from a trusted Church reference that shows what you just stated is false:

Infallibility as defined in "A Catholic Dictionary", states, "This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation(these infallibilities are distinct but correlative); (C) in the bishops of the Church, dispersed throughout the world, teaching definitively in union with the pope. This is not a different infallibility from (B) but is the ordinary exercise of a prerogative (hence called the "ordinary magisterium") which is manifested in a striking manner in an ecuмenical Council. This ordinary magisterium is exercised by pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books: it is thus in continuous function and embraces the whole deposit of faith."

Read what is written and do not neglect to understand what is written. As usual, you completely skipped over the fact that the two infallibilites are "distinct and correlative"- when they do not correlate, as is the case with BOD,  - they remain subject to that which popes have infallibly defined as I bolded for you in red. Were it any other way, there would be contradiction with no infallibility - as is the case with BOD.

Here  is what the catechism of Trent has to say about catechisms.

Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide."

Click on the link above of the Catechism of Trent and read it very carefully to find out what this catechism teaches about baptism and let us all know what it teaches about BOD first chance you get.


Oh yes - - consider that my arms are folded and my foot is tapping and my eyes are looking up in anticipation of you answering the question(s) I posted at the end of my last post. But I won't hold my breath.

Stubborn - you are completely misreading the definition that I posted. Go back and look at it and pay attention to the punctuation. It says that infallibility consists of A, B and C. Now let's focus on A and B which I will repost here:

"This infallibility resides (A) in the pope personally and alone; (B) in an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation(these infallibilities are distinct but correlative);"


"A" states the pope is infallible personally. "B" states "an ecuмenical Council subject to papal confirmation", meaning that after a General Council is complete, the pope must put his stamp of approval on the proceedings. If he does not, the General Council is not considered valid and is not considered infallible. The "subject to papal confirmation" is clearly referring to ecuмenical councils in this sentence if you look at the punctuation. As for the "these infallibilities are distinct but correlative" comment, notice it is in parenthesis and refers to both A and B. In other words, papal infallibility, and infallibility of a General Council are distinct but correlative, since the pope must approve the proceedings of a General Council for it to be infallible. This is all very easy to understand if you pay attention to the punctuation.

Next, your comment about catechisms. Go back and look very closely at the definition of infallibility that I posted from A Catholic Dictionary. It does not say entire catechisms are infallible. It says the ordinary magisterium "is exercised" in "pastoral letters, preaching, catechisms, the censorship of publications dealing with faith and morals, the reprobation of doctrines and books". We all know well that all pastoral letters, preaching, and catechisms are not infallible in and of themselves, but that each of these can contain unanimous continuous teaching of the Catholic Church, and when they do, this is the very definition of ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium refers to individual teachings of the Church, not entire collections of them. The Summa Theologica for instance; this entire book is not considered infallible, but individual teachings within it, when having been taught unanimously, certainly are. The definition also mentions pastoral letters - obviously a unanimous teaching of the Church would have to appear in such a letter for it to be considered part of the ordinary magisterium. Certainly all pastoral letters in the world wouldn't fall under this definition. You need to slow down, stop, and think as you read these definitions.

Oh yes - - consider that my arms are folded and my foot is tapping and my eyes are looking up in anticipation of you answering the question(s) I posted at the end of my last post. But I won't hold my breath.

Quote from: Clancularius

I agree with Jehanne and Stubborn that the scenario is not possible within the Church.

Now, look at a more tangible scenario and let's pick the dogma of the Assumption of the B.V.M., which was solemnly defined in 1950. Immediately after the definition, the encyclical contains the following words:

Quote

"if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

After this, to claim that one could possibly expect to find relics of bones from Our Lady at some archeological site would be calling into doubt this dogma.

The same question is asked: could the Apostolic See approve of a catchism for the general public use containing this? And, books for the general clergy? And, the Church having scrutinized the works of a later Saint which has this in it, and approved? And to top it all off, have this usage last for hundreds of years and nobody in the whole Church notice it was calling into doubt the dogma of the Assumption? Is that scenario possible?

Catechisms are books, they, unlike Scripture, are not an infallible expression of the Church's teachings whether they've been approved and used for 100s of years and have the endorsements of saints or not, does not change that fact. They are in fact a text book - and if in them, there is something that  the Church has spoken of in a contrary way, then the catechism has to be corrected. That's all there is to it and people should not make scandal if someone points out some inadequacy in a book.

We are not speaking of the Scriptures here, we are speaking of a book that is presented as a text book, these things are human productions and can be corrected. The fact that there have been numerous revisions to every catechism since catechisms began is a testament to this truth.

Show me a catechism that has remained in use for 100s of years which has never been revised and I'll show you a catechism without BOD.  

Again, the theory of BOD is exactly that, a theory. St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus and St. Augustine were among some of the greatest saints who taught of a BOD/BOB - however St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, as has been posted already numerous times,  also teach that there is no salvation without the sacrament - and St. Augustine retracted and corrected himself and in his last works and admitted that there was no salvation without the sacrament - Bowler has posted this numerous times as well.

Does a Catholic have to believe that there is such a thing as a BOD? No, because the dogmatic definitions of the Church exclude the idea of BOD  even though many saintly theologians and Doctors have shown sympathy with this idea and even though it appears in catechisms because the Church, by it's De Fide proclamations have contradicted them, as if to rule out this opinion. This exclusion shows that a BOD or BOB was never anything other than a theological opinion held by  some of the great saints and Doctors.

Sorry for the long reply - I will stop there and leave you with a question(s) now ...............
 
The Council of Trent proclaimed as de fide:

Quote

CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema

.  

The question is as yours - - How could the Apostolic See approve of a catechism for the general public use containing any teaching that teaches  water is not necessary for baptism? And, books for the general clergy teaching that water is not necessary for baptism? And, the Church having scrutinized the works of a later Saint which taught BOD said nothing about it, and approved that the metaphorical water of BOD suffices for salvation? And to top it all off, have this usage last for hundreds of years and nobody in the whole Church notice it was calling into doubt the dogma of EENS? Is that scenario possible?