Who Needs a Magisterium Anyway?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Why do we need a Magisterium? Sola Scriptura has created hundreds if not thousands of interpretations of Scripture - one is correct, the rest are to some degree, false. We need an authority to decide.
[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023533' date='Jul 13 2006, 08:32 AM']
Who does, really?

I just look at Limbo as an example.

One of the requirements of being a Roman Catholic, is you MUST submit to all the binding Dogma's of the church, right? For years, I have searched for that list, after all, if I MUST believe all of them, the very least they could do, is to tell me what they all are, don't you think?

In all the years, the closest answer I ever got, was a few that suggested I read Ott's book.

I then asked, if that was OFFICIAL, or just the speculations of ONE individual theologian, and could be disavowed whenever he proved inconvient. Seems that is the case, Ott is not speaking officially for anyone but himself.

One time, someone had the very interesting visual example. A person asked what is the difference between Christianity circa 100AD and Roman Catholicism circa 2000. There were two doorways, in one was all that you needed to know as a Christian then, which was one or two books. In the other, was the MILES of books that supposedly constitue the deposit of faith that constitutes the Roman Catholic faith.

Even the current CCC has weasle word language in the opening, I guess that gives them an out, if anything contained therein needs "revised, eliminated, or radically changed" next time the "Faith that NEVER Changes" decides to do one more ABOUT FACE.
[/quote]
Limbo of the Infants has never been a Church teaching. It is the speculation of individual theologians.

A good list of dogmas:
[url="http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm"]http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm[/url]

Christianity is a living religion. The faithful should be provided with constant instruction on how the Gospel applies to the situations they face.

You are misunderstanding the portion of the Catechism you quoted. All it is saying is that different cultures/peoples respond differently to different methods of instruction - therefore you should present the doctrines in ways that they can understand.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023793' date='Jul 13 2006, 04:40 PM']
So....now OBSERVATIONS have become WHINING?

That really does tend to just buttress up the comments made about languge being such a flexible too in the hands of a Catholic apologist...of whatever age.
[/quote]
sorry, that was intended hyperbolically. it was merely meant to illustrate the point that although we offer up our doctrines to be scrutinized severely, putting high stakes on having none of them throughout the whole history of the Church, you cry 'deception' when we consistently and categorically say which things do have authority and which things do not have authority.

individual priests and bishops-- only authoritative when consistent with everything else
council of all bishops in union with pope-- always authoritative on faith and morals
pope binding the church-- always authoritative on faith and morals
all bishops through all time-- always authoritative on faith and morals, hardest category to pinpoint, more of an abstract concept but still can carry weight

there is no deception here. if anything from the first category says something contradicting the faith, nothing is proven except that that individual does not represent the Church. if any of the other categories contradict the faith, or contradict one another, you have disproven the Catholic faith.

very simple. no deception. we put our faith completely on the line here. its fundamental core is routinely exposed because we believe it to be our greatest weakness: you can disprove our faith by showing contradicting or erring doctrines taught by the Church herself (in any of those last three categories)

and please don't cry victim while ignoring my arguments. you are not the object of any wrath on my part. every cent of both my posts has been spent ad argumentum.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Here are a couple other CCC paragraphs for your review:

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."[/quote]

[b]In short, SOLA ECCLESIA. [/b]

Define yourself as being directed by the Holy Spirit, then freeing yourself from the contraints UPON men that the scriptures are designed to be.

Thereby freeing man, to add to, change, and redefine God's Word in any manner that the current regime wants to.

We define what scripture means, we define what constitutes tradition, we define what God wants you to know. And thereby, we sit OVER and ABOVE all three.

SOLA ECCLESIA.



[quote] there is no deception here. if anything from the first category says something contradicting the faith, nothing is proven except that that individual does not represent the Church. if any of the other categories contradict the faith, or contradict one another, you have disproven the Catholic faith.[/quote]

Not really. Time and time again, when inconsitancies are provided, the ONLY answer is the complete disavowal of the Pope issuing the decree, the Council was not universal, the theologian was not speaking for the entire church, etc.

Essentially, the Catholic Church has this out, you disclaim all the past that is inconvienient in light of what is taught today, and embrace ONLY those councils, decrees, and encylicals that support the regime of the month.

Everyone that has debated seriously Roman Catholics has seen this pattern and the only ones that are not are the apologists themselves.

One only has to read the legalists that are the TRADS, they have reams and reams of documentation of the church teaching something for ages, then about face, the new boys on the block flip flop into a new mode, without breaking a sweat.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Paul said it well:


But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:3 (New American Standard Bible)



For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

1 Corinthians 2:2 (New American Standard Bible)



See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Colossians 2:8 (New American Standard Bible)[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Haha. That letter mentions "Divino Afflante Spiritus." It's "Spiritu," not "Spiritus."

Seven biblical passages is more than enough. If God said it once more, would you believe it then? What if He said it only once?

Oh, and limbo isn't a dogma or doctrine. It's a theological speculation used by some to try to explain a doctrine.

[Justified Saint]

When phrases like "sola ecclesia" are used, it shows the mark of anti-Catholic disingenuousness. Not only is doctrine being misrepresented and misunderstood, it is then given a false label that has been concocted and invented in the mind of the Protestant. This is usually a guarantee that geunine conversation is not a very high priority.

[Guest JeffCR07]

It seems to me that there is a glaring inconsistency and fallacy in the arguments of those who are being critical of the magisterium. The authority of the Church to interpret scripture is not limited mearly to dogmatic proclamation. Just because there are only severn verses that have been dogmatically interpreted does not mean that the Church's power of interpretation is limited to that.

The Church interprets Scripture and the Faith dogmatically through the Councils and [i]ex cathedra[/i] statements, but also through the ordinary universal magisterium, which can be found in the universal teaching of all the bishops. Moreover, this authentic teaching and interpretation is also found in the [i]sensus fidelium[/i], which, of its very nature, is submissive to the authority of the Church.

If you want to know what a Catholic "has" to believe in order to be Catholic, all you have to do is look at the infallible teachings of the Ecumenical Councils (the proclamations typically end with "anathema sic"), but if you think that is all there is to being Catholic, or if you think that the Church's role as authentic interpreter of Scripture ends there, you would be sorely mistaken.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1024147' date='Jul 14 2006, 08:10 AM']Thereby freeing man, to add to, change, and redefine God's Word in any manner that the current regime wants to.[/quote]It's always curious to see someone who is so willing to accept the Church's authority to proclaim the Canon of the New Testament, yet be unable to see the same Church authoritatively speak on the meaning of the contents. See link: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp"]"What's Your Authority?" at Catholic.com[/url].

One could even say that Martin Luther was actually [i]consistent [/i] when he not only rejected the Church's ability to infallibly interpret the New Testament, but also rejected the authority of the Church to determine the Canon of the New Testament (quoting Wiki, "Martin Luther...made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon"--[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Reformation_Era"]link[/url]).

Can anyone imagine the outcry from Protestants if the Catholic Church had felt free to reject the established Canon of the New Testament like Martin Luther did, and "[i]change, and redefine God's Word in any manner that the current regime want(ed) to[/i]"? This is the hidden truth of the Reformation. The reformers actually attempted to "change and redefine" Christianity, based on the pressures of the times. The Church isn't blamed for changing its teachings during the Reformation; it is blamed for [i]preserving its teachings[/i]!

If someone is a purist "Bible-Only" Christian, he must face the question of the Canon of New Testament Scriptures. In the New Testament, there is no explicit listing of books which make up its canon. The only two answers are, (1) the canon somehow materialized out of thin air, or (2) some historical institution was divinely guided to establish the Canon of inspired writings. Both options break the of "Bible-Only" theory.

A last thought: Unlike Muslims, Catholics do not believe that the Word of God is just a book. For us, the Word of God is a Person--Our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is the One on whom we base our Faith.

[Aloysius]

there's 21 ecumenical councils. every word about faith and morals of every one is infallible. show any to have inconsistencies, from nicea to vatican ii, and I will leave the Church at once.

everything any pope has ever bound the church in about faith and morals is infallble. show any statement from any pope [i]binding the Church[/i] and I will leave the Church.

and you're darn tootin the Magisterium is who interprets scripture. That's why, out of all the hundreds of Christian writings from the first, second, and third century, only 27 are considered part of the canon of scripture. but the Church doesn't have free reign to change things from generation to generation; we put our whole faith on the line saying there are never any CHANGES from one teaching to another.

don't talk to me about your experience with other apologists, or other protestants' experience with other apologists. just because some dialogues end in misunderstandings doesn't proove any point. here, from the get-go, I've given the categories by which we judge whether something has the weight to disprove the Church. an Ecumenical Council, or a statement by a pope which binds the whole Church. we will stand by 100% of those. anything that doesn't fit those criteria is not "suddenly discovered" not to have fit those criteria, it never has. either the pope binds the whole Church or he doesn't, it's very clear and self-evident through history.

basically, we're saying the Church has authority limited to certain things, and because we do not extend it to everything you say we're deceiving. we are not, because we are very consistent as to which things have authority and which do not.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Budge' post='1023641' date='Jul 13 2006, 11:55 AM']
The topic isnt about me nor do I want it transferred to me..

Answer the question.
[/quote]
Ok.
Catholic Teaching is waaaaaaay beyond 7 passages of the Bible… 2000 years beyond that. For real.
Pick up the current edition of the Catholic Catechism... you will see about 700 pages filled with Biblical citations and Christian teaching explained.
Take a look, it’s worth it.

Does that answer your question? I could have simply said "no." lol
God bless you and your friend.
--- LD

Edited July 14, 2006 by Lounge Daddy

[SJP]

Lounge Daddy, Aloysius, Mateo el Feo, JeffCR07, Justified Saint, Raphael and others, GREAT WORK!! Every time Budge attacks the Church, your responses make me all the more confident that I made the right decision in becoming Catholic! ROME SWEET HOME.
Keep it up!

[jswranch]

Eutychus, we seem to have a disagreement on this issue of authority. How about we follow Mt 18:15-18 and turn to the church for solving these problems just like Jesus directed? The church seems to be the foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), not the bible alone. If the bible was so self-interpreting, with the holy spirit, Prots would agree on infant baptism.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1024147' date='Jul 14 2006, 06:10 AM']
[b]In short, SOLA ECCLESIA. [/b][/quote] No, not SOLA ECCLESIA. The CC follows SOLA [url="http://www.pcf.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html"]DEI VERBUM[/url], aka ECCLESIA ET SCRIPTURA (scripture and traditon). Read it for yourself.

We can only trust the Word of God for truth and as the lone source to base our lives off of. The debate between Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Nestorians, Coptics, Old Catholics etc vs Protestants is whether the Word of God consists of the 'Bible alone' or 'Bible, early church, and hierarchy protected by the Holy Spirit alone.'

Can you prove SOLA SCRIPTURA from the bible? No you cannot. It is not there. The best you could do is show the bible is infallible and some of the traditions from the Jews were man made and condemned by Christ. For further study, look up all the scriptures that refer to tradition. Tradition is supported.

[quote]Define yourself as being directed by the Holy Spirit, then freeing yourself from the contraints UPON men that the scriptures are designed to be.[/quote] Constraints according to you or according to the early christians and the church Christ established in 33ad? The foundation for all Catholic Dogmas were laid out before 200ad. I was received into the fullness of the Catholic Church 20 Nov, 2005. It has been, spiritually, the best year of my life. I am free to worship God in the fullness of his Word. Before, I knew some of Jesus. Now, I know the full Jesus and the Church he established to give me guidance and sacraments as he intended.

Story: A catholic buddy was hanging out with my Pentacostal father in law. The Pentacostal said, "Do you really believe all that the the Catholic Church teaches? You need to go to our bible college." My Catholic buddy said, "Why? So I can believe what they teach?"

[quote]Not really. Time and time again, when inconsitancies are provided, the ONLY answer is the complete disavowal of the Pope issuing the decree, the Council was not universal, the theologian was not speaking for the entire church, etc.

Essentially, the Catholic Church has this out, you disclaim all the past that is inconvienient in light of what is taught today, and embrace ONLY those councils, decrees, and encylicals that support the regime of the month.[/quote] Prove it. This will be easy. I love slow-pitch batting practice. Please start a new thread on this.

[quote]One only has to read the legalists that are the TRADS, they have reams and reams of documentation of the church teaching something for ages, then about face, the new boys on the block flip flop into a new mode, without breaking a sweat.[/quote] Excuse me? I am not a trad. I faithfully read the canons and explanations of the pre-VII councils. I also regularly quote from the documents of VII. I do not think your comment applies to any other chruch reps here either. (psst. dont tell anyone, but I also like guitars at Mass.)

One of my daily Mass intentions is that, "All Christians come into one flock, speak with one voice, and eat at one table."

I want peace/full communion with you.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

It's simple:
Without the Church, there is no Bible. Can a book invest authority in itself?

[Laudate_Dominum]

who needs the magisterium? Christianity is kind of a joke without it in my opinion. What I saw in Christianity before I discovered the Church was a bunch of quibbling and superficiality. My sisters church split over whether or not it was ok to use musical instruments in worship services. Some protestants think abortion is a good thing, other believe it is murder and thus completely evil, etc. etc.

The Magisterium guides the Church in a much more living and organic way than seems to be implied by the theme of this thread. The charisms and activity of the Magisterium are not based on some kind of shallow, formalistic nonsense. And the idea of the magisterium putting together some kind of giant commentary on Scripture giving the once and for all "correct" interpretations of every verse would reduce the Bible, and Christianity to a dead set of propositions. Christianity is mystery and presence; it is a living reality, not a set of precepts carved in stone.

[jswranch]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1023927' date='Jul 13 2006, 05:58 PM']
JS - I appreciate seeing that list of rankings of teachings! They can get confusing at times.
[/quote] No problem. This my rattle a few cages around here, but the ban on contraception is not an infallible teaching, yet!

(Personal note: the straw that broke the camel's back and got me to join the CC was its teaching against contraception. Wife and I are promoters of NFP.)

[Aloysius]

actually, yes it is. It has been universally taught as a matter of Christian morality by the bishops throughout the history of the Church, and as such belongs to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church, which is infallible.

moreover, Pope Paul VI excercized his ordinary magisterium in promoting Humanae Vitae. the pope's ordinary magisterium enjoys infallibility not of its own merit, but on the merits of the teaching being put forth. a pope can infallibly confirm that something is part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which is what Pope Paul VI did in Humanae Vitae.

the pope is not only infallible ex cathedra, he is infallible when binding the whole church on matters of faith and morals. it is the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, and I believe it is covered in Lumen Gentium 25. the pope is not only infallble when speaking ex cathedra, that is his extra-ordinary magisterium in which he defines infallible dogma.

anyway, this is not at all confusing, it fits very neatly and simply into the categories listed in my other post here. if a pope binds the church in a doctrine about faith or morals, Vaticans I and II say that's infallible. simple, clear, direct. any of those statements meeting those criteria which contradict one another, the councils, or the scriptures whould prove the Church wrong.

PS, listen to L_D, that is a beautiful and true view of what the magisterium is. you cannot fit it into a Walmart shopping bag or a public school text book-- it is alive with the Spirit of God. there's no systematic defining of Sacred Scripture because that would be disrespectful to Sacred Scripture. there's no periodic table of the dogmas. there is just a Church on fire for Christ blazing the flame of truth in a dark world. the absolute worst reaction to that uncontrollable flame of truth is to ask for it to be alphetized, categorized, and placed on a shelf for your browsing at the earliest convenience. membership in the Church is a love affair with Christ.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1025261' date='Jul 15 2006, 10:35 PM']
actually, yes it is. [The ban on the use of Contraception] has been universally taught as a matter of Christian morality by the bishops throughout the history of the Church, and as such belongs to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church, which is infallible.

moreover, Pope Paul VI excercized his ordinary magisterium in promoting Humanae Vitae. the pope's ordinary magisterium enjoys infallibility not of its own merit, but on the merits of the teaching being put forth. a pope can infallibly confirm that something is part of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which is what Pope Paul VI did in Humanae Vitae.

the pope is not only infallible ex cathedra, he is infallible when binding the whole church on matters of faith and morals. it is the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, and I believe it is covered in Lumen Gentium 25. the pope is not only infallble when speaking ex cathedra, that is his extra-ordinary magisterium in which he defines infallible dogma....[/quote]
I disagree. While I agree that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church can exercise infallibility is this area, I disagree with you on whether it has already done. The strong language required for infallibility has not occured under either PVI or JPII or any other wing of the magisterium. It is still at the SENTENTIA COMMUNIA level, which is not infallible. Let us both do some homework before we go into further disagreement. There is an answer to this question.

(For all you Non-Catholics jumping up and down right now at what you think is two solid Catholics arguing, do not be deceived. Aloysius and I both agree that practicing contraception is sinful, intrinsically wrong, immoral and is a grave matter. What we are debating is whether it is yet an infallible teaching.)

[jswranch]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1024913' date='Jul 14 2006, 10:52 PM']
who needs the magisterium? Christianity is kind of a joke without it in my opinion. What I saw in Christianity before I discovered the Church was a bunch of quibbling and superficiality. My sisters church split over whether or not it was ok to use musical instruments in worship services. Some protestants think abortion is a good thing, other believe it is murder and thus completely evil, etc. etc.

The Magisterium guides the Church in a much more living and organic way than seems to be implied by the theme of this thread. The charisms and activity of the Magisterium are not based on some kind of shallow, formalistic nonsense. And the idea of the magisterium putting together some kind of giant commentary on Scripture giving the once and for all "correct" interpretations of every verse would reduce the Bible, and Christianity to a dead set of propositions. Christianity is mystery and presence; it is a living reality, not a set of precepts carved in stone.
[/quote]
Amen. An explanation can also be found in [url="http://www.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html"]Humanae Vitae:[/url] (the use of [ ] indicates my additions into the text)

[quote]No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law [and scripture]. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law [and proper scriptural interpretation], not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

(1) See Pius IX, encyc. letter Oui pluribus: Pii IX P.M. Acta, 1, pp. 9-10; St. Pius X encyc. letter Singulari quadam: AAS 4 (1912), 658; Pius XI, encyc.letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 579-581; Pius XII, address Magnificate Dominum to the episcopate of the Catholic World: AAS 46 (1954), 671-672; John XXIII, encyc. letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), 457.
(2) See Mt 28. 18-19.
(3) See Mt 7. 21.[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1025289' date='Jul 15 2006, 11:42 PM']
It is still at the SENTENTIA COMMUNIA level, which is not infallible. Let us both do some homework before we go into further disagreement. There is an answer to this question.
[/quote]
The Church's teaching on contraception is not on the level of [i]sententia communia[/i]. I assume you actually understand the grades of certitude in theology since you are so confident as to offer Al an admonishment.
[i]Sententia communis[/i] is the realm of speculation and opinion, whereas the Church's teaching on contraception is definitive and [i]de fide[/i].

The Church interprets revelation and the natural law infallibly; infallible teaching is not limited to proclaimed dogmas. You will find very few formal dogmas that are direct moral definitions. In general definitive interpretations of the moral law come by way of the ordinary magisterium. Among definitive interpretations of the natural law I'd say the teaching on contraception is indisputably certain because it has been given the attention of an entire encyclical which was intended to once and for all clarify the matter.

And the language of Humanae Vitae in no way suggests that the Church was simply putting forth a speculative opinion. We have a definitive interpretation of the natural law via the ordinary magisterium and confirmed by papal decree. Humanae Vitae was an exercise of the Church's charism to infallibly interpret natural law, it was not mere opinion or hypothesis.

[quote]No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation.

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses.

...

We, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to Us by Christ, intend to give Our reply to this series of grave questions.

...

The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

...

The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself.
[/quote]

yeah, so.. I posted before I saw jswranch's post. My bad.

[jswranch]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023533' date='Jul 13 2006, 06:32 AM']
I just look at Limbo as an example.[/quote] "Limbo, the doctrine that never was or is." Check out my previous post on the ranking categories of levels of truth. Infant Limbo never made that list. It was once a popular opinion, however it never was an official teaching. If you doubt this, you may try and cite it from a council or decisive papal statement. Old Catechisms do not count but are great for teaching. It has never been officially supported or denied.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023533' date='Jul 13 2006, 06:32 AM']One of the requirements of being a Roman Catholic, is you MUST submit to all the binding Dogma's of the church, right?[/quote]
Right. Keep in mind that your Protestant/Baptist/Fundi/or "I'm not Prot I am Christian"-Evangelicals all have their own written or unwritten list. [url="http://www.newlifechurch.org/beliefs.jsp"]For example, look at our local Evangelical Mega Church statement of faith.[/url] I argue they would make a much longer list if pushed to do so. To be a faithful Catholic, you will also need to hold the items of VERITATES CATHOLICAE and all other de fide, not just the dogmas, and have an acceptible attitude toward the rest of the theological opinions.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023533' date='Jul 13 2006, 06:32 AM']
For years, I have searched for that list, after all, if I MUST believe all of them, the very least they could do, is to tell me what they all are, don't you think?

In all the years, the closest answer I ever got, was a few that suggested I read Ott's book.[/quote]
They are all in the CCC, though not explicitly pointed out.[url="http://www.prayrosary.com/shoppingcart/booksourcesofdogma.php3"]"Fundamentals of Catholic Dogmas," by Fr. Henry Denzinger is also very highly respected, but not as user friendly.[/url] Referred to as 'Denzinger,' it is highly used in Vatican documents: VII, encyclicals, etc. Compared to Ott, Denzinger lists the actual document instead of the Dogma. If you want, I will get both of the books for you.


[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023533' date='Jul 13 2006, 06:32 AM']I then asked, if that was OFFICIAL, or just the speculations of ONE individual theologian, and could be disavowed whenever he proved inconvient.

Seems that is the case, Ott is not speaking officially for anyone but himself.[/quote] The CC has not defined a list, because they have yet to really need to explicitly define one. All the serious Catholic theologians accept it, including the Cardinals, Pope etc. The CC only seems to define things out of necessity.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1023533' date='Jul 13 2006, 06:32 AM']One time, someone had the very interesting visual example. A person asked what is the difference between Christianity circa 100AD and Roman Catholicism circa 2000. There were two doorways, in one was all that you needed to know as a Christian then, which was one or two books. In the other, was the MILES of books that supposedly constitue the deposit of faith that constitutes the Roman Catholic faith.[/quote] First, all you need for Catholicism is the Bible and a basic Catechism. Period. Someone like you and me who demands to ask, "why, how, when," can dig all day long if necessary.

Second, the early church circa 100AD had the Dicache (aka Catechism of the Apostles), Epistle of Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas etc to toss around along with the 27 other books. There was no one single book of the bible back then. Your image of the two doors of Christian History is a good attempt, but fails. It is as a modern protestant/evangelical view of the early church. By mid AD150's you already have successors to the apostles requiring converts to learn and profess their version of the truth, which opposed the other 'Christian' Gnostics, Docetists, Ebionites etc who taught their own version of Christ.

Third, just as an individual grows in the knowledge of God's truth through a lifetime, the pilgrim church learns over the centuries, requiring an increase in size of the Catechism and explanations. I argue that you have beliefs (hypostatic union, 100% man 100% God) which would cause one of the twelve apostles to go cross-eyed. Eventually he would agree with you, given the correct arguments but it would be a topic not readily on his mind.

[quote]Even the current CCC has weasle word language in the opening, I guess that gives them an out, if anything contained therein needs "revised, eliminated, or radically changed" next time the "Faith that NEVER Changes" decides to do one more ABOUT FACE.[/quote]
I am waiting for you to cite some solid, undeniable examples of this for discussion. You have made quite an accusation without proof.

Edited July 16, 2006 by jswranch