Ccc Paragraph 841 (re Muslims)

[VanHooty]

Icthus, the Catechism says that Muslims are included in the "plan of salvation." It does not say that Muslims will be saved, that they are right, or that they have something going for them. All people, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, pagans, atheists, and et cetra, are *somehow* included in God's plan of salvation because they are *human.*

And I think Chrysologus already explained the worship of the Judeo-Christian God better then I can in my sleep-deprived state. :D

[ICTHUS]

On reconsidering, youre right Chrysologous. I'm not backing down from my current position, but I shall research the issue more. Where would you suggest I begin?

[Chrysologus]

"Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church."

- Code of Canon Law 750.2

This references doctrines which are not "de fide," but are being taught by the Magisterium. This includes everything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Canon 1371 permits the Holy See to punish anyone who rejects these definitive, non-dogmatic teachings. It is a matter of obedience to the church based on the knowledge that the Magisterium would not and cannot teach something which contradicts dogma. Consequently, it is not possible that any part of the Catechism contradicts the truth, including the passage about Muslims. It is possible that the Catechism is badly worded, confusing, and/or misleading (although I don't think so), but the same is true of dogmatic statements (like the dogmatic definition at the end of Unam Sanctam, in my opinion, due to its wording which seems to leave no room for personal culpability).

"Many Catholics think they are bound only to accept and believe what is infallibly presented. This is not true at all. In July 1999, the Pope came out with a Motu Proprio, called AD Tuendam Fidem, which basically states that all the doctrine of the Church commonly presented, as in the Catechism, is bound to be accepted by all the faithful, even when not infallible. E.g. The Encyclical Humanae Vitae, of 1968, forbidding artificial contraception may well not be infallible (I personally hold that it is infallible), but it still binds under pain of serious sin. Also, the 10 Commandments were never taught as infallible, but they all bind, and seriously. So, in short, we faithful must accept all the Church's teaching and the best and most convenient source of this is the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. God bless."

- Fr. Bob Levis from EWTN (11/20/02)

[Chrysologus]

Considering paragraph 841 of the Catechism comes from Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican II, I recommend reading it, especially the quoted paragraph 16. It can be found here. The Catechism also references Nostra Aetate, Vatican II's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, especially paragraph 3. This can be found here. Keep especially in mind that these documents are from the last ecumenical council, through and with which the Holy Spirit works.

[Don John of Austria]

Crystologus ---I agree that only things which hold the anathama are infallable-- but this fits Iron monks definition of infallability and being an ecuminical Council certianly has a stronger Claim than that of the Catachism.

[PedroX]

I'm a bit confused here, I thought that only the Holy Father, or Church Councils could declare things "infallible". While I agree that everything in the Catechism should be followed "under penalty of grave sin" this does not make it infallible. Haveing priestly celibacy is a discipline. To argue or to disobey it is a grave sin, but it is not an infallible teaching.

Is this right, or am I crazy?

Just trying to better understand.

peace...

[cmotherofpirl]

And I love it when people throw their brain out the window and dont think for themselves.

one of the the reason I reject CCC 841 as a heresy, is that, aside from the Scriptural reasons I just quoted, is that it contradicts two millenia of teaching. If you're proclaiming Jesus Christ to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, with no exceptions whatsoever, for 2000 years, and then suddenly you say "Oh, well except for those  Muslims that started up their "religion" in the 14th Century. They worship the same God as us", I wonder who the heretic is? The person who pulled that teaching out of thin air as an attempt to compromise with a corrupt, evil religion, or is it 2000 years of orthodox Catholic teaching?

Wake up and smell the fromage, mon amie.

NO COMPROMISE.

The Church didn't compromise for the Protties (Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli) and their doctrinal poison.

Why is the Bride of Christ compromising with the Mohammedans!!!????

So because you don't understand something, the Church is Wrong?

lol

THat is a very common view held by many of our protestant visitors.

THey think every line of every document must be understood and agreeable and meet their standards before being acceptable.

FAITH precedes understanding.

I believe Lord, help my unbelief.

Are you going to declare something heretical everytime you lack understanding?

[Jake Huether]

And I love it when people throw their brain out the window and dont think for themselves.

That's a bit harsh, considering, we do use our brains to make the discision to do what the Church says. In fact, it is in faith that we do what the Church says, but that doesn't prove or disprove whether or not we are researching what the Church has told us to do.

For instance, you are researching this - and are telling cmother that it's wrong.

On the other hand cmother is defending it, saying that since the Church proclaimed it, we must follow it.

Cmother's statement in no way admits that she hasn't herself done considerable research on the issue. It in no way admits that she hasn't prayed or contemplated the issue. Cmother might be a PhD on the issue compared to you, yet you say she is "throwing her brain out the window" simply because she supports something the Church has proclaimed.

In my opinion, you have thrown your brain out the window - but that's just pure speculation.

[Jake Huether]

To follow up:

I for one declare that whatever the Church requires me to do, I will do. And all that the Church has required me to do thus far, I have done to the best of my ability.

And although in faith I have done and will do what the Church has or will tell me to do...

There has never been an instance where I have thoroughly researched one such issue and found it to be in any way contradictory to Scripture or Tradition or to the Teachings of the Magesterium.

I have indeed been confused at times, but the confusion was due to my lack of understanding - and in no way connected to an error of the Church.

Remember - the Church, the Body of Christ, is DIVINE in origin. She is the Bride of Christ! We are not, we are simply humans. It may take a while to fully understand some of the Teachings of the Church. But as we stand in disbelief, we must believe!

[Chrysologus]

Clerical celibacy isn't a matter of doctrine at all, so it can't be infallible. It's just a discipline.

[PedroX]

Chrysologus,

Thats what I mean. The Catechism clearly states the practice of celibacy, but it can't be infallable. However, Iron Monk and others state that the catechism is infallable. I'm still confused.

peace...

[Jake Huether]

Chrysologus,

Thats what I mean.  The Catechism clearly states the practice of celibacy, but it can't be infallable.  However, Iron Monk and others state that the catechism is infallable.  I'm still confused.

peace...

They don't state that the Catechism is infallible. They state that there are teachings (the ones on faith and morals) in the Catechism that are. However, like mentioned, even if they are NOT infallible, as Catholics we are obliged to tollow what it says.

[PedroX]

Jake,

I agree absolutely that we need to follow everything in the Catechism. However, if something is not infallible, it might some day be subject to change. Or, it might now be OK to question it, even while we continue to obey it.

The following is a quote from Iron Monk's earlier post on this thread, if I have misunderstood it, please forgive me. "Anything in the Catechism on Faith and Morals is Infallible." Also, "Anything on faith and morals is infallible which is the official teaching of the Church is infallible, to say it's not is to not understand what infallible is and/or what the Catechism is."

I'm really not trying to cause trouble, but this is important for anyone coming into the church. As a Presbyterian, no one, and nothing besides scripture is infallible. I thought I understood this doctrine of the Church, but maybe not.

peace...

[Jake Huether]

Jake,

I agree absolutely that we need to follow everything in the Catechism.  However, if something is not infallible, it might some day be subject to change.  Or, it might now be OK to question it, even while we continue to obey it.

The following is a quote from Iron Monk's earlier post on this thread, if I have misunderstood it, please forgive me.  "Anything in the Catechism on Faith and Morals is Infallible."  Also, "Anything on faith and morals is infallible which is the official teaching of the Church is infallible, to say it's not is to not understand what infallible is and/or what the Catechism is."

I'm really not trying to cause trouble, but this is important for anyone coming into the church.  As a Presbyterian, no one, and nothing besides scripture is infallible.  I thought I understood this doctrine of the Church, but maybe not.

peace...

Pedro,

As I earlier pointed out, Ironmonk stated that anything in the Catechism on faith and morals IS indeed infallible. That is not to say that the intire Catechism is infallible, because there are things such as discipline discussed in the Catechism.

Hope that helps.

[Don John of Austria]

But everything in the Catachism on Faith in Morals is not infallable only those thing which have been previously infallably defined. Every thing the Chuch says on Faith and morals is not infallable, only things which fall into a certian catagory.

[Chrysologus]

I must agree with Don John. There are dogmas and doctrines, and though all doctrine (everything in the Catechism) must be obeyed, only dogma has been taught infallibly. As soon as a doctrine is taught infallibly (by a pope, council, or the ordinary magisterium), it becomes dogma forever.

[Don John of Austria]

you are of course correct

[Good Friday]

That's not the case. The difference between doctrine and dogma is not that one is infallible and the other is not. Both the doctrine and the dogma of the Catholic Church are infallible; they are true and will never be untrue. The difference is that dogma doesn't develop, but doctrine can. Doctrine can't change, it can develop. For instance, the doctrine of the Real Presence developed into the doctrine of transsubstantiation. It was always true, but the Church didn't know about it yet. This is what Jesus meant when He said the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth -- the development of doctrine.

On the other hand, dogma doesn't develop. The Immaculate Conception of Mary will never develop into anything lesser or greater; it is what it is. The Assumption of Mary will never develop into anything lesser or greater; she was assumed into Heaven, the end.

The difference between doctrine and dogma is not that one is infallible and the other is not; it's that one develops and the other does not. Both the doctrine and dogma of the Catholic Church are infallible.

[Don John of Austria]

Only those things Which have been definitively stated are Infallable, it is not enough, that it has been said it must have been taught definitively.

Her is Part of the Entry on Infallability from the Catholic encyclopedia( I omited the various proofs and evience for infallability leaving only the complete sections on th organs of infallability and how one knows something is infallable:

III. ORGANS OF INFALLIBILITY

Having established the general doctrine of the Church's infallibility, we naturally proceed to ask what are the organs through which the voice of infallible authority makes itself heard. We have already seen that it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter's successor, who is its visible head and centre. During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecumenical councils and the pope.

A. Ecumenical Councils

1. An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:

the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.

As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.

Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).

2. That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope? If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that "the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever" (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth "universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu" (Ep. 120, 1).

3. It remains to be observed, in opposition to the theory of conciliar infallibility usually defended by High Church Anglicans that once the requisite papal confirmation has been given the doctrinal decisions of an ecumenical council become infallible and irreformable; there is no need to wait perhaps hundreds of years for the unanimous acceptance and approbation of the whole Christian world. Such a theory really amounts to a denial of conciliar infallibility, and sets up in the final court of appeal an altogether vague and ineffective tribunal. If the theory be true, were not the Arians perfectly justified in their prolonged struggle to reverse Nicaea, and has not the persistent refusal of the Nestorians down to our own day to accept Ephesus and of the Monophysites to accept Chalcedon been sufficient to defeat the ratification of those councils? No workable rule can be given for deciding when such subsequent ratification as this theory requires becomes effective and even if this could be done in the case of some of the earlier councils whose definitions are received by the Anglicans, it would still be true that since the Photian schism it has been practically impossible to secure any such consensus as is required -- in other words that the working of infallible authority, the purpose of which is to teach every generation, has been suspended since the ninth century, and that Christ's promises to His Church have been falsified. It is consoling, no doubt, to cling to the abstract doctrine of an infallible authority but if one adopts a theory which represents that authority as unable to fulfil its appointed task during the greater part of the Church's life, it is not easy to see how this consolatory belief is anything more than a delusion.

B. The Pope

EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).

the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.

infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

and

IV. SCOPE AND OBJECT OF INFALLIBILITY

1. In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of fhe Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affrmed by the Vatican Council when it says that "the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8)" (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

2. Catholic theologians are agreed in recognising the general principle that has just been stated, but it cannot be said that they are equally unanimous in regard to the concrete applications of this principle. Yet it is generally held, and may be said to be theologically certain, (a) that what are technically described as "theological conclusions," i. e. inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason, fall under the scope of the Church's infallible authority. (B) It is also generally held, and rightlv that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate, or a certain council ecumenical, or whether objective heresy or error is taught in a certain book or other published document. This last point in particular figured prominently in the Jansenist controversy, the heretics contending that, while the famous five propositions attributed to Jansenius were rightly condemned, they did not truly express the doctrine contained in his book "Augustinus". Clement XI, in condemning this subterfuge (see Denz., 1350, old no. 1317) merely reasserted the principle which had been followed by the fathers of Nicaea in condemning the "Thalia" of Arius, by the fathers of Ephesus in condemning the writings of Nestorius, and by the Second Council of Constantinople in condemning the Three Chapters. © It is also commonly and rightly held that the Church is infallible in the canonization of saints, that is to say, when canonization takes place according to the solemn process that has been followed since the ninth century. Mere beatification, however, as distinguished from canonization, is not held to be infallible, and in canonization itself the only fact that is infallibly determined is that the soul of the canonized saint departed in the state of grace and already enjoys the beatific vision. (d) As to moral precepts or laws, as distinct from moral doctrine, infallibility goes no farther than to protect the Church against passing universal laws which in principle would be immoral. It would be out of place to speak of infallibility in connection the opportuneness or the administration of necessarily changing disciplinary laws, although, of course, Catholics believe that the Church receives appropriate Divine guidance in this and in similar matters where practical spiritual wisdom is required.

V. WHAT TEACHING IS INFALLIBLE?

A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under tbe scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

 

a link to the entire artical

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#III

[Good Friday]

But what in the Catechism hasn't been stated definitively?