What Does The Catholic Church Actually Teach?

[Mungo]

What Does The Catholic Church Actually Teach?
Catholics get frustrated by Protestants quoting from anecdotal sources; “a nun at school told me…”; “a catholic I know told me….”, etc. Or quoting from some newspaper or other – all non-authoritative.

I guess Protestants get frustrated by Catholics constantly telling them – but that not what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Or that’s not doctrine it’s a discipline.

So I thought I give some understanding of what and where authoritative Catholic teaching is to be found. It’s not going to be comprehensive, or necessarily well organised.

If you want to ask questions for clarification please feel free to do so.

First Some Notes
Translations
All official Church documents are in Latin. Unless you are a Latin scholar all we have are translations. Hopefully these will reflect accurately the original but there is always the possibility that some of the nuances may be lost in translation.

English words change their meanings over time. As a result older translations may use words in a different sense to modern usage.

Meanings
Any Church statement should be understood in the sense that the writer intended it to be meant. The Catholic Church uses some words in a different way to Protestants. Neither is right or wrong. A text therefore should be understood in the way the Church uses a word.

Authoritative Sources:
It should be obvious that there is a difference in authoritativeness between an article in a local church bulletin and a statement issued by a General Council (like the Council of Trent or Vatican II). But SDAs particularly seem to see no difference.

There is also a difference in authoritativeness between something the Pope might say in a chat to a journalist on a plane and something he writes in an Apostolic Constitution or an Encyclical.

The source and the audience are important for understanding anything.

There are no official newspapers of the Catholic Church. The closest is L'Osservatore Romano, which is descibed as “semi-official”.

The most authoritative statements are those of a General (or Ecumenical) Council (21 of them), and some Papal statements where the Pope intends to make an infallible statement (very few).

Probably the best place to start looking for Catholic teaching is the Catechism of The Catholic Church (1992 and revised since then). http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

This is a distillation of Catholic teaching and is the (I think) the first universal catechism. There have been many local catechisms before that. The main catechism before this one (apart from the "penny catechism" of my childhood) was the Catechism of the Council of Trent (also known as the Roman Catechism).

In his letter promulgating the Catechism Pope John Paul II writes:
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church … is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith…”

As the Catechism is complicated a “Compendium” was issued in 2005 which simplified the Catechism into a question and answer format. It follows the same structure as the main catechism and has paragraph numbers in the margin which link to the main catechism for detail. http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

The Vatican web site is a useful source – http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html – though sometimes difficult to navigate unless you know where to look (& IMO worse than it used to be!).

Of course there are other good sources of information, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, though this is not an official Church publication.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You forgot:

The Christian Faith: In the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church​

Jacques Dupuis​

I'm curious if anything "earth shaking" is happening in the Catholic Church today. What are Catholics focusing on?

 

[Mungo]

You forgot:

The Christian Faith: In the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church​

Jacques Dupuis​

Jaques Dupuis, whoeve he is, is not an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church and therefore not relevant to this topic.

I'm curious if anything "earth shaking" is happening in the Catholic Church today. What are Catholics focusing on?

That would be a different topic.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Jaques Dupuis, whoeve he is, is not an official spokesperson for the Catholic Church and therefore not relevant to this topic.


That would be a different topic.

Whoever he is!

This classic compendium of the documents which define the Christian faith as understood by Catholics includes the creeds of the Church from the earliest times, along with major extracts from all the important decrees of councils, popes and Vatican congregations touching on matters of faith, now fully updated through to 2000. All these documents have been organized in chronological order, under themes, each with a helpful introduction and outline, so that developments in teaching the faith, and the concerns of theology and authority at various periods in the history of the Church, become fully apparent. Indexes and Tables enhance the value of this unique collection for catechists and all students of Church history and theology.

 

[Walpole]

Whoever he is!

This classic compendium of the documents which define the Christian faith as understood by Catholics includes the creeds of the Church from the earliest times, along with major extracts from all the important decrees of councils, popes and Vatican congregations touching on matters of faith, now fully updated through to 2000. All these documents have been organized in chronological order, under themes, each with a helpful introduction and outline, so that developments in teaching the faith, and the concerns of theology and authority at various periods in the history of the Church, become fully apparent. Indexes and Tables enhance the value of this unique collection for catechists and all students of Church history and theology.

FYI, Jaques Dupuis' work was condemned by the Church.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupuis_en.html

 

[Niblo]

FYI, Jaques Dupuis' work was condemned by the Church.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupuis_en.html

Excellent reply ?

 

[Alfred Persson]

FYI, Jaques Dupuis' work was condemned by the Church.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupuis_en.html

Incorrect. That is a smear. A different book on pluralism was condemned for its ambiguities, a judgment Father Dupuis consented to and remained in faithful Catholic service:

At the same time, while noting the author’s willingness to provide the necessary clarifications, as evident in his Responses, as well as his desire to remain faithful to the doctrine of the Church and the teaching of the Magisterium, they found that his book contained notable ambiguities and difficulties on important doctrinal points, which could lead a reader to erroneous or harmful opinions. These points concerned the interpretation of the sole and universal salvific mediation of Christ, the unicity and completeness of Christ’s revelation, the universal salvific action of the Holy Spirit, the orientation of all people to the Church, and the value and significance of the salvific function of other religions. At the conclusion of the ordinary procedure of examination, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to draft a Notification,[1] intended to safeguard the doctrine of the Catholic faith from errors, ambiguities or harmful interpretations. This Notification, approved by the Holy Father in the Audience of November 24, 2000, was presented to Father Jacques Dupuis and was accepted by him. By signing the text, the author committed himself to assent to the stated theses and, in his future theological activity and publications, to hold the doctrinal contents indicated in the Notification, the text of which must be included in any reprinting or further editions of his book, as well as in all translations. The present Notification is not meant as a judgment on the author’s subjective thought, but rather as a statement of the Church’s teaching on certain aspects of the above-mentioned doctrinal truths, and as a refutation of erroneous or harmful opinions, which, prescinding from the author’s intentions, could be derived from reading the ambiguous statements and insufficient explanations found in certain sections of the text.

All should note this thread implies Protestants often get Catholics wrong and smear them with inaccuracies. Evidently, even Catholics do that to fellow Catholics, as you did to Father Dupuis.

His work collating official teachings of the Catholic Church is well respected, orthodox from a Catholic perspective, and saves students time and effort when researching official Church teaching.

 

[Walpole]

Incorrect. That is a smear. A different book on pluralism was condemned for its ambiguities, a judgment Father Dupuis consented to and remained in faithful Catholic service:

At the same time, while noting the author’s willingness to provide the necessary clarifications, as evident in his Responses, as well as his desire to remain faithful to the doctrine of the Church and the teaching of the Magisterium, they found that his book contained notable ambiguities and difficulties on important doctrinal points, which could lead a reader to erroneous or harmful opinions. These points concerned the interpretation of the sole and universal salvific mediation of Christ, the unicity and completeness of Christ’s revelation, the universal salvific action of the Holy Spirit, the orientation of all people to the Church, and the value and significance of the salvific function of other religions. At the conclusion of the ordinary procedure of examination, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to draft a Notification,[1] intended to safeguard the doctrine of the Catholic faith from errors, ambiguities or harmful interpretations. This Notification, approved by the Holy Father in the Audience of November 24, 2000, was presented to Father Jacques Dupuis and was accepted by him. By signing the text, the author committed himself to assent to the stated theses and, in his future theological activity and publications, to hold the doctrinal contents indicated in the Notification, the text of which must be included in any reprinting or further editions of his book, as well as in all translations. The present Notification is not meant as a judgment on the author’s subjective thought, but rather as a statement of the Church’s teaching on certain aspects of the above-mentioned doctrinal truths, and as a refutation of erroneous or harmful opinions, which, prescinding from the author’s intentions, could be derived from reading the ambiguous statements and insufficient explanations found in certain sections of the text.

All should note this thread implies Protestants often get Catholics wrong and smear them with inaccuracies. Evidently, even Catholics do that to fellow Catholics, as you did to Father Dupuis.

His work collating official teachings of the Catholic Church is well respected, orthodox from a Catholic perspective, and saves students time and effort when researching official Church teaching.

I'm incorrect? It's "a smear"? Did you not even read what you copied and pasted???

I gave you link to the actual Vatican notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, part of which you copied and pasted above, but apparently didn't bother reading.

If that does not satisfy you, here is the Commentary from the same Congregation...

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010312_dupuis-2_en.html

"...This Notification seeks to underscore the gravity and danger of certain statements which, while apparently moderate, precisely for this reason risk being easily and uncritically accepted as compatible with the Church’s doctrine, even by those closely involved in interreligious dialogue. In the present context of a society that is indeed increasingly multireligious and multicultural, the Church recognizes that she urgently needs to express her doctrinal identity and witness in love to her unshakeable faith in Jesus Christ, source of truth and salvation."

There's a reason why he was relieved of his teaching position at the Gregorian.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I'm incorrect? It's "a smear"? Did you not even read what you copied and pasted???

I gave you link to the actual Vatican notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, part of which you copied and pasted above, but apparently didn't bother reading.

If that does not satisfy you, here is the Commentary from the same Congregation...

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010312_dupuis-2_en.html

"...This Notification seeks to underscore the gravity and danger of certain statements which, while apparently moderate, precisely for this reason risk being easily and uncritically accepted as compatible with the Church’s doctrine, even by those closely involved in interreligious dialogue. In the present context of a society that is indeed increasingly multireligious and multicultural, the Church recognizes that she urgently needs to express her doctrinal identity and witness in love to her unshakeable faith in Jesus Christ, source of truth and salvation."

There's a reason why he was relieved of his teaching position at the Gregorian.

That is irrelevant to the work I cited. It remains a good compilation of doctrinal documents.

 

[Mungo]

That is irrelevant to the work I cited. It remains a good compilation of doctrinal documents.

Whilst any quotations from actual Church documents may be valid, serious errors in one work throw doubts on to the use of such quotes and any opinions he may express alongside them.

A much more widely known and recognised compilation of Church teaching from Church documents is Heinrich Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, normally just referred to as Denzinger.

Since its first edition in 1854, "Denzinger" has become a standard work and an indispensable tool for serious theological work. It faithfully reflects the history of the Church's faith and its development over the centuries. Indeed, its reference system has become an established part of citing important theological sources. (Ignatius Press)

 

[Niblo]

Absolutely true.

 

[donadams]

Ludwig Ott fundamentals of catholic dogma?

 

[Niblo]

Ludwig Ott fundamentals of catholic dogma?

Another excellent source. Drawers heavily on Denzinger (the principal source). Both are to be recommended.

 

[donadams]

Another excellent source. Drawers heavily on Denzinger (the principal source). Both are to be recommended.

And the church teaches is good too

 

[Niblo]

And the church teaches is good too

For sure, there are folk in the Church who know their stuff.

 

[Angelical]

What Does The Catholic Church Actually Teach?
Catholics get frustrated by Protestants quoting from anecdotal sources; “a nun at school told me…”; “a catholic I know told me….”, etc. Or quoting from some newspaper or other – all non-authoritative.

I guess Protestants get frustrated by Catholics constantly telling them – but that not what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Or that’s not doctrine it’s a discipline.

So I thought I give some understanding of what and where authoritative Catholic teaching is to be found. It’s not going to be comprehensive, or necessarily well organised.

If you want to ask questions for clarification please feel free to do so.

First Some Notes
Translations
All official Church documents are in Latin. Unless you are a Latin scholar all we have are translations. Hopefully these will reflect accurately the original but there is always the possibility that some of the nuances may be lost in translation.

English words change their meanings over time. As a result older translations may use words in a different sense to modern usage.

Meanings
Any Church statement should be understood in the sense that the writer intended it to be meant. The Catholic Church uses some words in a different way to Protestants. Neither is right or wrong. A text therefore should be understood in the way the Church uses a word.

Authoritative Sources:
It should be obvious that there is a difference in authoritativeness between an article in a local church bulletin and a statement issued by a General Council (like the Council of Trent or Vatican II). But SDAs particularly seem to see no difference.

There is also a difference in authoritativeness between something the Pope might say in a chat to a journalist on a plane and something he writes in an Apostolic Constitution or an Encyclical.

The source and the audience are important for understanding anything.

There are no official newspapers of the Catholic Church. The closest is L'Osservatore Romano, which is descibed as “semi-official”.

The most authoritative statements are those of a General (or Ecumenical) Council (21 of them), and some Papal statements where the Pope intends to make an infallible statement (very few).

Probably the best place to start looking for Catholic teaching is the Catechism of The Catholic Church (1992 and revised since then). http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

This is a distillation of Catholic teaching and is the (I think) the first universal catechism. There have been many local catechisms before that. The main catechism before this one (apart from the "penny catechism" of my childhood) was the Catechism of the Council of Trent (also known as the Roman Catechism).

In his letter promulgating the Catechism Pope John Paul II writes:
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church … is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith…”

As the Catechism is complicated a “Compendium” was issued in 2005 which simplified the Catechism into a question and answer format. It follows the same structure as the main catechism and has paragraph numbers in the margin which link to the main catechism for detail. http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

The Vatican web site is a useful source – http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html – though sometimes difficult to navigate unless you know where to look (& IMO worse than it used to be!).

Of course there are other good sources of information, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, though this is not an official Church publication.

There is a lot to say about Catholics, I’m not going to get into as much as I should but the Pope accepting Gifts among the Laity and to understand the whole thing I think with like Vatican II and the difference between Catholic and Greek Orthodox, or Ethiopian Orthodox, and then what a Protestant is at all, these are kind of things everyone should look at and start to understand. The Catholics were the Holy Roman Empire we could say, it is interesting that Vatican Hill is a Pagan Infant Graveyard and I think this says more about where maybe a “Supreme Deity” might have a Presence, rather than some kind of Pagan hit against them. The Pagans and things there would say things about like Phallus Worshipers and things.

But I think really where Catholicism becomes a Rosetta Stone and not just a kind of Archaeological look at kind of not early Christianity but Early Enough you could call it; the point where it goes beyond that is the kind of maybe you could say Jesuit Studies. The Trinity being imposed everywhere, “You have a Goddess, that’s the Mother Virgin Mary now, and who is her Son?… Now guess what?”. So then you can actually look at the different kind of Jurisdictions, which are present in the Parishes and kind of Organized by Saint, these kind of different Orders should the kind of different Ancient Practices turned into Catholicism. So then Catholicism becomes a Study of the most Ancient Religions, and tries to decipher Jesus from Satan and things.

 

[donadams]

Bible proves that Mary is not a Goddess?

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women. Lk 1:28

How can a goddess be full of grace?
Hail Mary full of grace!

How can the Lord be with a goddess?
The lord is with thee!

How can a goddess be blessed!
Blessed art thou, and all generations shall call me blessed!

Lk 1: 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

How can a goddess be the mother of God?

Lk 1: 45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

How could a goddess be faithful?

Lk 1: 46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

How could a goddess glorify God or have a savior?

Lk 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

How could a goddess be humble?

Lk 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

How could a goddess be the immaculate conception and the have the Holy Spirit accomplish the Miraculous conception of Jesus?

Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

How could a goddess be a perpetual Virgin bringing forth the savior of the world?

Jn 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

How could a goddess be our spiritual mother?

 

[donadams]

Biblical Mary, mother of God, ever Virgin, sinless, mother of our salvation!

Mother of God Lk 1:43

Immaculate conception (sinless) gen 3:15 enmity or total war none of satans works are found in Mary!
Also Lk 1:28 full of grace lk 1:49 great things plural (immaculate conception of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus) Rev12:1 woman clothed with the sun. Immaculate purity

Without Mary being immaculate the Holy Spirit could not conceive the “holy” son of God in Her!

Lk 1:30 found favor with God (the salvation lost by Adam) mother of our salvation Lk 2:30 and cos she consented to our salvation! Lk 1:38

Perpetual Virgin Isa 7:14 matt 1:21
Lk 1:31-34

Spiritual Mother Jn 19:26-27 rev 12:17

Mother of the creator is mother of all creation!

Mother of the Redeemer is the mother of all the redeemed!

Mother of our Savior is the mother of all those who obtain salvation!
Lk 1:30

 

[donadams]

A good tree!

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

The fruit of the tree of Mary is our salvation! Matt 1:21 Lk 2:30 Jesus is our salvation! This reflects the immaculate conception of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus!
Lk 1:30 Mary found our salvation!
Lk 1:38 consented to our salvation!

A good tree (immaculate conception) Lk 1:49 God has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes!

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

A sinner would be an evil tree with evil fruit, but the fruit of Mary is salvation!

Mary brings in the good fruits of our redemption and salvation!

So Mary CANNOT be a sinner or a bad tree!

Mary’s throne is the throne of divine grace! Heb 4:16

Christ cannot take flesh and blood from a sinner!
The Holy Spirit cannot conceive in a sinner!

Anything consecrated to God’s service must “holy” and for His purpose only!

The ark of the covenant is a type of Mary!

The temple “dwelling place of God” was also a type of Mary!

 

[Mungo]

This has gone completely off topic so I'm closing it.