I’m trying to find out where the catholic church itself has put on record that “these propositions, and only these propositions, are its teachings.”
I know that the Catholic Church is open to the ongoing development of tradition, so a kind of “at least for now” should be appended to the above, but I didn’t want to put it right in there for fear it would appear snarky. I don’t mean it that way.
I’m also interested in finding out what I think is a factual matter but I acknowledge in advance some may find it debatable. I would like to know when a pope has been on record as saying something about scripture or morals, where a later pope is on record as having said something incompatible about scripture and morals. (This is of course in pursuit of some thinking I’m doing with someone else about papal infallibility.)
This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries.
and
This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole. Numerous cross-references in the margin of the text (numbers found at the end of a sentence referring to other paragraphs that deal with the same theme), as well as the analytical index at the end of the volume, allow the reader to view each theme in its relationship with the entirety of the faith.
From the above two passages, I would conclude that the catechism claims that believing (in a robust sense that involves putting into practice etc) everything contained in the catechism is sufficient for being a catholic in full communion. Is that what church leaders generally affirm?
Hm, although actually—really all it says is that it “aims” at being and is “conceived of” as being a complete presentation of what is essential to catholic faith.
Which would of course allow for the possibility that it fails at that purpose.
So the catechism might not be what I’m looking for after all.
ETA: Also while it says it aims to present the essentials and fundamentals, it doesn’t say it aims to present only the essentials and fundamentals. Not sure if that’s intended to be implied or not.
Okay, point taken. But the only way it could be perfect is if it were authored by a Pope. That’s a nice idea. Francis is said to be very people-friendly. Suggest it to him!
That gets to a related question. How do I know when the pope is speaking ex cathedra. Is it automatically so every time he speaks concerning faith or morals? Or are there other conditions that must be met? Who can certify whether those conditions have been met?
Strangely legalistic questions, maybe. But the catholic canons are a body of law after all. And when you have to be careful what you say to make sure it fits what you mean, legalistic thinking is the way to go.
I can’t speak for the Roman Catholic Church (or any church for that matter), but most churches follow a creed (or creeds) that state their core beliefs (i.e. you must believe this or you cannot call yourself a member of this church). I recall reciting both the Nicene and the Apostles Creed in the Lutheran Missouri Synod. I doubt seriously whether you need to check every point in the catechism to be a catholic “in full communion”.
Ethelbert, I’m not sure about that. I’m having a discussion with someone over whether a catholic in full communion can support same sex marriage. It would appear that the catechism doesn’t allow it (since supporting it would seem to be, by the church’s lights, an encouragement to others to commit mortal sins), but I questioned whether you have to believe every single thing the church teaches to be in full communion. My interlocutor affirms the following: If you’re aware of a church teaching and disagree with it, insisting on disagreeing after correction, then you have excommunicated yourself. He’s got documentation for this, but it invites the question “What is church teaching?” Here it is suggested that the catechism encompasses all and only the teachings of the RCC. That’s the best answer I have so far–but it appears the document is carefully worded to avoid the full implications of that claim.
So I’m in this position now where I’m told a person must believe all the teachings of the church (that he knows about) or else he has excommunicated himself, and yet I don’t know right now just exactly what these “teachings” are supposed to encompass, so my original question (the one that started my discussion) about support for same sex marriage remains unanswered.
Catholicism (and, I believe Greek Orthodoxy as well) teaches that their church itself is infallible and that God has established leaders and a hierarchy to make official determinations as necessary. I don’t think you can separate out an official document that has every single teaching listed exhaustively in the sense that you could then go off on your own and use the document to correctly determine the answer to every question with 100% adherence. They teach that you need the Church to correctly interpret the documents that are available. Protestants are more likely to have more complete pronouncements of doctrine. Many Protestant churches have a teaching that is called “sola scriptura” which means that the Bible itself (as they understand it) is the final and only source of true doctrine. Anything not in the Bible is just some person’s opinion. Some churches specify what versions of the Bible are considered authoritative, but the general thought seems to be that all versions are imperfect in some way but most are not catastrophically so.
The Catechism is basically what you are looking for. It covers the beliefs of the Church and how those guide moral behavior.
There is also the Code of Canon Law but that is more about the legalities of the Church and not the beliefs and teachings. Code of Canon Law: Table of Contents
The Pope is not ex cathedra every time he speaks. It’s only been invoked twice ever, for the declaration of the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception of Mary (NB: not the same as the virgin birth) as truths.
The idea of your actions, whether sinful or not, leading others to sin is called scandal.
And the Roman Catholic Church adds Tradition as one of the bases for belief, i.e., if many folks have believed in the truth of something and it has been fruitful, that is an indication that there is a truth behind it or we would have known otherwise.
In addition to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, one should be familiar with its Code of Canon Law (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM) to have a well-informed picture of Catholic doctrine and practice.
Disbelief in one or more doctrines of the Catholic Church, by itself, seems unlikely to incur a latae sententiae excommunication (i.e. an automatic excommunication by virtue of committing a certain act). The closest offense enumerated in the Code of Canon Law is 1364 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P52.HTM), and that seems to apply to people who actually convert away from the RCC, not those who stay within it but reject some teachings. Still, if a Catholic bishop were sufficiently upset by a Catholic layperson or cleric who publicly supported same-sex marriage, he might warn them about the possibility of excommunication and/or actually excommunicate them.
The closest thing I can find to this actually happening was in 1996, when Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska issued a canonical warning to members of 12 groups that they had to renounce membership by a certain date or they would incur latae sententiae excommunication.
It’s sort of like secular law. You can give a stack of statute books, case law, and law school textbooks to a drunken frat boy and his little sister and then ask them a theoretical question regarding whether or not a time traveler from the year 4223 whose MultiPass says he was born in 4180 would legally be adult in 2013 because of his physical maturity or whether or not that would be trumped by Smith v. Jones (1834) where the court defined age as being the current date minus the person’s date of birth and therefore local police would have the right to take away his time machine and send him into foster care.
You need a court of competent jurisdiction to make the call.
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
Translation: It’s infallible if it’s promulgated as specifically being infallible. This has happened only twice in history: the teaching of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary into heaven. Also, all the really core stuff we always believed in universally is infallible, e.g., the divinity of Christ.
Speaking of canons, the Code of Canon Law puts many of the teachings and especially regulatory procedures, such as what’s necessary for someone to get excommunicated, into a codified document.
Ask your friend, “Cite?”.
Dissent from one specific moral teaching of the church is not necessarily grounds for ex communication unless the Code of Canon Law specifically provides for it. For example, there is a provision in the Code which imposes automatic excommunication for procuring an abortion. And even then, the automatic excommunication for procuring an abortion only applies if the person is aware that there is the penalty of excommunication (so, in Canon Law, ignorance is an excuse).
To be officially excommunicated then for supporting gay civil marriage, there would have to be a very specific process of due process involving a local bishop informing a person they will be excommunicated if they don’t publicly recant and then a whole bunch of back and forth. It’s all in the Code of Canon Law.
Which means your friend is terribly misinformed (church talk for ‘full of bs’).
[This commentary was issued coincident with the promulgation of “Ad tuendam fidem” by Pope John Paul II, modifying the Oriental and Latin codes of canon law.]
(Bolding added.)
I know that there is a frequently repeated meme on the internet that the Church has only made two infallible statements. The Church, however, believes that it is not necessary for the Pope to make a formal ex cathedra declaration in order for a teaching to be infallible, as explained above.
The Church has no formal list of infallible pronouncements. Their feeling is that you should listen to whatever the Pope and the Bishops tell you and not consult any formal lists.
I have to apologize for one part of what I said above–the conversation took place yesterday and I incorrectly remembered the person showing me some church document or other which implied a latae excommunication for stubborn disagreement with a church doctrine, but in fact the documentation incident I was remembering was concerning a different but related matter. Concerning latae excommunication, my interlocutor actually backed down and clarified that he was simply expressing his own opinion as to whether it was really possible for a person in communion with the church to support same sex marriage. He feels certain that no one who supports it could possibly actually be in communion, but admits this is not something explicitly spelled out in church doctrine. So that part’s probably settled.