For those who label themselves "Trads"

[Cam42]

No, I am not feeling grumpy.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' post='986909' date='May 22 2006, 05:32 AM']What part of this statement didn't you understand? Start another thread, if you want to continue this. This thread is about traditionalism. [/quote]

I was answering both the original question and Goldenchild's question.

[quote]From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Motu Proprio

QUOTEThrough the intercession of Mary Most Holy, Mother of Christ and Mother of the Church, may everyone who reads this authoritative text recognize and embrace ever more fully the inexhaustable beauty, uniqueness and significance of the incomparable Gift which God has made to the human race in His only Son, Jesus Christ, the "Way, the Truth, and the Life"
Pope Benedict XVI

My question is do you accept this statement (Mainly, the word "authoritative"?[/quote]

The answer isn't a simple yes or no, in my opinion.

And since I consider myself a Traditionalist, I felt it necessary to weigh in my opinion.


[quote name='son_of_angels' post='986935' date='May 22 2006, 07:49 AM']Anyone who claims to be a "traditionalist," however, before he would claim the pope and his teachings, along with a good, measured acceptance of the Catechism, has some problems with his thinking. The Church doesn't go for sects.... [/quote]

I don't consider myself part of a sect, but rather use the name to describe how I approach the Liturgy and teachings of the Church, but mainly the Liturgy.

Just like Franciscans and Dominicans have different charisms, I think the laity does as well and use the term to describe a particular charism I feel drawn to rather than a group I've joined.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='987043' date='May 22 2006, 11:06 AM']
I was answering both the original question and Goldenchild's question.
The answer isn't a simple yes or no, in my opinion.

And since I consider myself a Traditionalist, I felt it necessary to weigh in my opinion.
[/quote]

What a load of carp!!!!!! You used this as a means to perpetuate your own bias and lack of understanding of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Although this is a typical response. If you want to discuss the Catechism *again,* then I suggest that you start another thread, *again.* (sighs, and shakes head, knowing where this will lead.....)

Again, as I said, you were muddying the waters.....this effectively stopped being a thread on Trads, and started down your convoluted road.....

[Azriel]

I always wonder what a load of carp weighs.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Azriel' post='987151' date='May 22 2006, 12:37 PM']
I always wonder what a load of carp weighs.
[/quote]

A little less than a pound of shiznit.

[qfnol31]

It would be incorrect to take the Catechism as completely infallible and infallible because of its own authority. I don't want that to be the basis of how I view the Catechism as it is. I want people to know that the Church doesn't accept the Catechism as completely infallible in this way, and this we know because of a valid view of Tradition, to which I hope that I hold true in my Traditionalist view.

Mine isn't a typical response, or I don't think so anyways, because I didn't research it...I thought it out. I do not have SSPX tendencies or take just about any of their views on things (they believe Christ is God, I believe Christ is God so I cannot say we disagree on everything), but I continually argue against their views of such things as the Catechism. If anyone here wishes to research where I have argued that things in the Catechism are infallible, you should look up "Baptism by Blood" because I've gone off for quite a while on how we know it's infallible because of its place in the Catechism. I still hold to that view today.

Cam, have brought your own bias in here as well, and have also turned it off topic by this bias. However, because it would be pointless for us to discuss this anymore, how about we go back to discussing neo-Thomism, because that's whence most of our problems arise.

However, I shan't continue this unless we want to address the issues I raised.

[goldenchild17]

My opinion is if the leadership in Rome(especially Benedict XVI) consider the Catechism to be authoritative, then it should be considered so by those who follow him...

JPII said: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith . . . This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms." Fidei Depositum

The current Vatican leader, Benedict XVI, in the very first quote of this thread himself said that it was an "authoritative text." If one is to give their assent to this leader, and the past one, I think it best to let them decide how strong theologically it is. And they have said it is good and authoritative. I myself do not agree. However I don't agree that they are legitimate leaders themselves. But if one is going to believe they are true popes I think such a person should not assume that they know more than their leader.

[qfnol31]

I do think that it is authoritative as far as faith and morals go.

I think that theologically it's pretty good. We are free to disagree with some of the ways things are worded, but I haven't given that much thought. As far as authority goes, even I agree that it has full authority in matters of faith and morals. This doesn't mean it has to be infallible.

Yes, it is infallible in many parts, not so much in some, but in all parts of faith and morals (not disciplines, et cetera) are authoritative.

In matters of discipline it isn't meant to be authoritative, as it says in the beginning it is meant for the doctrine of the Church...

Anyways, for most that's splitting hairs too far. For me it says that things must be followed even if they aren't infallible.

[goldenchild17]

Okay I think I see what you're saying.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='987658' date='May 22 2006, 09:28 PM']
It would be incorrect to take the Catechism as completely infallible and infallible because of its own authority. I don't want that to be the basis of how I view the Catechism as it is. I want people to know that the Church doesn't accept the Catechism as completely infallible in this way, and this we know because of a valid view of Tradition, to which I hope that I hold true in my Traditionalist view.

Mine isn't a typical response, or I don't think so anyways, because I didn't research it...I thought it out. I do not have SSPX tendencies or take just about any of their views on things (they believe Christ is God, I believe Christ is God so I cannot say we disagree on everything), but I continually argue against their views of such things as the Catechism. If anyone here wishes to research where I have argued that things in the Catechism are infallible, you should look up "Baptism by Blood" because I've gone off for quite a while on how we know it's infallible because of its place in the Catechism. I still hold to that view today.

Cam, have brought your own bias in here as well, and have also turned it off topic by this bias. However, because it would be pointless for us to discuss this anymore, how about we go back to discussing neo-Thomism, because that's whence most of our problems arise.

However, I shan't continue this unless we want to address the issues I raised.
[/quote]

AND THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY ZACH!!!!!!!!!!! GEE WHIZ!!!!!

You have changed the terms, AGAIN!!!!!

When did this become a discussion about the infalliblity of the Catechism? It has never, I repeat NEVER (well, except in your head) a discussion about the infalliblity of the Catechism. I was speaking about the inerrancy of the Catechism. You have moved from inerrancy to infalliblity. There is a difference, yet YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. You equate them as being the same thing, you always have.

I have not brought my own bias into this conversation. I have defended the position of two popes and the Catholic Church. You need to rethink your position and you need to really study and learn what the role of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is all about. Goldenchild is more correct on this than you are, at least in definition.

When you can show me in this thread where I spoke to the Catechism being infallible, then we can have the discussion that you are trying to have, *AGAIN!!!!!*

Zach, your bias has now clouded your entire understanding. You need to slow down and breathe. You need to step back and look at just what you are arguing. Because what you are arguing is totally different than that of what I am defending.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Cam42' post='950394' date='Apr 17 2006, 05:40 AM'][quote]There are some not infallible truths [this was later corrected to teachings] in the Catechism. As long as they are of faith and morals we must obey them.

There are some non-teachings too that don't have much to do with faith or morals (though very, very rare).[/quote]

Please stop. You are muddying the waters. That is an incorrect statement and it leads one to believe that we don't have to hold the whole of the Catechism as authoritative.

Care to show me a fallible truth, Zach? [/quote]

Actually right here.

Andy, what is the difference between inerrant and infallible then?

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='988126' date='May 23 2006, 11:40 AM']
[quote]Please stop. You are muddying the waters. That is an incorrect statement and it leads one to believe that we don't have to hold the whole of the Catechism as authoritative.

Care to show me a fallible truth, Zach?[/quote]

Actually right here.

Andy, what is the difference between inerrant and infallible then?
[/quote]

Actually not. I asked you to show me a fallible truth.....you have yet to do that.

INERRANT -- CONTAINING NO ERRORS (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

INFALLIBLE -- INCAPABLE OF ERROR IN EXPOUNDING DOCTRINE ON FAITH AND MORALS. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Big difference. So, let's see......does the Catechism have an imprimatur? Yes. Does the Catechism have a Nihil Obstat? Yes.

The Catechism is free from error. You admit this, but then rescind this, but then admit this, but then rescind this......it is tiresome and boring......

Just admit that you are wrong on this....

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is inerrant. There are no errors in the Catechism. End of Story. How do I know this, because it is a sure norm for teaching the Catholic Faith.

[quote name='FIDEI DEPOSITUM']The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom![/quote]

[quote name='FIDEI DEPOSITUM']This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, [b]showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith[/b]. [u]The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.[/u][/quote]

Gee, Zach....If it is a sure norm and and a statement of the Church's faith and catholic doctrine illumined by Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium, as well as an offering to those individuals who what to know what the Catholic Church believes, HOW CAN IT CONTAIN ERROR?

The short answer (this is for everyone, not just you Zach), is that it cannot.

[qfnol31]

You cannot claim absolutely that there are no errors unless it is infallibly taught. Since you have said that it is not infallible, then it would simply be your opinion that it is without error.

Also, I did not say it has error, but that it is not protected from error. This doesn't mean it's not authoritative.

Also, perhaps you wish to step away from this continuing discussion with me? It seems that you no longer seem able to respond to any legitimate questions I raise, more that either you don't notice them or have become really caught up in arguing against my position that you too seem to brush them aside. Either way, I have raised a few points, as have some others, that you didn't quite address.

I also haven't said that it was not free from error, but that if there is error I will not search for it. That does not mean I don't find it authoritative.

Also, lastly, I also have pointed out places that clearly do not fall within faith or morals but something else and you didn't say anything to it.

Only if something is infallibly taught/defined is it guaranteed freedom from error. That does not mean that only infallibly taught things are binding on the mind and will of the faithful. -- Vatican II Lumen Gentium 25

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='988701' date='May 23 2006, 06:17 PM']
You cannot claim absolutely that there are no errors unless it is infallibly taught. Since you have said that it is not infallible, then it would simply be your opinion that it is without error.

Also, I did not say it has error, but that it is not protected from error. This doesn't mean it's not authoritative.

Also, perhaps you wish to step away from this continuing discussion with me? It seems that you no longer seem able to respond to any legitimate questions I raise, more that either you don't notice them or have become really caught up in arguing against my position that you too seem to brush them aside. Either way, I have raised a few points, as have some others, that you didn't quite address.

I also haven't said that it was not free from error, but that if there is error I will not search for it. That does not mean I don't find it authoritative.

Also, lastly, I also have pointed out places that clearly do not fall within faith or morals but something else and you didn't say anything to it.

Only if something is infallibly taught/defined is it guaranteed freedom from error. That does not mean that only infallibly taught things are binding on the mind and will of the faithful. -- Vatican II Lumen Gentium 25
[/quote]

LOL, you are a twisty noodle.

I am claiming nothing. I am simply supporting the view of two popes and the Catholic Church's Magisterium. Again, I have neither said that is infallible nor that it is not infallible. What I have said is that the Catechism is inerrant. It is a distinction that you fail to understand.

You say:
[quote]I do think it has some possibility for error because not everything in there are faith or morals....[/quote]

That would make it errant, in your view. Unless you would like to retract that statement.

I have answered everything that you have put forth, "O King of the Softballs." Your positions are weak at best and you are the one who has not answered the questions raised, in this thread or any other.

If you believe the Catechism to be in error (ie. containing error) then it is your obligation to bring forth the error so that the Church may correct herself. I doubt that to be the case though.

You have not pointed out anything, Zach. You only think that you have. Your only argument thus far has been the capital punishment argument, which has been thoroughly shown to be incorrect.

And there is the crux of your error, Zach. You need to take the whole of the statement in to context, not just one line.......Here is the whole of the paragraph from Lumen Gentium:

[quote name='Lumen Gentium #25']Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. [b]They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.[/b] In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. [b]The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.[/b]

[b]But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, [u]the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself[/u], and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.[/b] The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents; but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.[/quote]

And what did John Paul II say?
[quote name='Fidei Depositum']The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom![/quote]

[quote name='Fidei Depositum']This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.[/quote]

Oh, silly me.....John Paul II would never refer to Vatican Council II when dealing with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Oh wait, he also says......

[quote name='Fidei Depositum']GUARDING THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH IS THE MISSION WHICH THE LORD ENTRUSTED TO HIS CHURCH, and which she fulfills in every age. [b]The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,[/b] which was opened 30 years ago by my predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, had as its intention and purpose to highlight the Church's apostolic and pastoral mission, and by making the truth of the Gospel shine forth to lead all people to seek and receive Christ's love which surpasses all knowledge (cf. Eph 3:19).

The principal task entrusted to the Council by Pope John XXIII was to guard and present better the precious deposit of Christian doctrine in order to make it more accessible to the Christian faithful and to all people of good will. For this reason the Council was not first of all to condemn the errors of the time, but above all to strive calmly to show the strength and beauty of the doctrine of the faith. "Illumined by the light of this Council", the Pope said, "the Church. . . will become greater in spiritual riches and gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear. . . Our duty is to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, thus pursuing the path which the Church has followed for 20 centuries."

With the help of God, the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a considerable number of doctrinal statements and pastoral norms which were presented to the whole Church. There the Pastors and Christian faithful find directives for that "renewal of thought, action, practices and moral virtue, of joy and hope, which was the very purpose of the Council".

After its conclusion, the Council did not cease to inspire the Church's life. In 1985 I was able to assert, "For me, then - who had the special grace of participating in it and actively collaborating in its development - Vatican II has always been, and especially during these years of my Pontificate, the constant reference point of my every pastoral action, in the conscious commitment to implement its directives concretely and faithfully at the level of each Church and the whole Church."[/quote]

This Catechism, which you so quickly dismiss as "potentially erroneous" is in fact a direct out pouring of Vatican Council II and in direct harmony with Lumen Gentium as well as the will of the Magisterium. For as John Paul II says:

[quote name='Fidei Depositum']Following the renewal of the Liturgy and the new codification of the canon law of the Latin Church and that of the Oriental Catholic Churches, this catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of renewing the whole life of the Church, as desired and begun by the Second Vatican Council.[/quote]

Hmmmm......makes ya wanna think!!!!!!!

[qfnol31]

If you think about it, just because something can be erroneous doesn't make it.

Of course, I don't have an opinion on it being erroneous in faith or morals, but somehow you've twisted it into me wanting to say so. Why don't I have an opinion on it being erroneous...well, because I'm a faithful Catholic...one who also disagrees with how you view the Catechism as the "end all." If you don't, well, that's kinda how you're coming across.

You need to make a distinction between the capacity and the actuality of a thing. That's a pretty Thomistic distinction.

Andy, perhaps leaving your bias against me outta this might make it more fruitful.

Also, I didn't bring forward the death penalty in here at all.

Can you, though, respond to my post at the top of this page (or around there) and on the other page? I think not because you have not.

Time for you to play by the rules you like for debate.

[quote]This Catechism, which you so quickly dismiss as "potentially erroneous" is in fact a direct out pouring of Vatican Council II and in direct harmony with Lumen Gentium as well as the will of the Magisterium. For as John Paul II says:[/quote]

Actually, I don't quickly dismiss it. I just treat it the same as the Church. It isn't infallible...If it is not potentially erroneous it is infallible, according to the definition you supplied. If it it not potentially erroneous then it has the charism of infallibility...If it doesn't, can you show how that is?

Anyways, it is not infallible, is it?

It's funny and odd how you said that I think it's erroneous and then later you say I think it's potentially erroneous. One of these thoughts about me is erroneous itself, and you know which.