The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

The actual best place to read what the Vatican teaches and has taught is in the Vatican archives. Unfortunately, they limit access to a great degree. You have to be favorable to the Vatican and you have to specifically ask for something in order to see it and even then the access is limited.

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

Exactly what do you mean by "Vatican archives"?

The Archives are available on the Vatican web site at http://asv.vatican.va/home_en.htm

According to web sources the "Vatican Secret Archives" were opened in the late 19th century; that is before I was born and I'll wager it was before you were born too

I do not doubt that many papers and volumes from the "secret archives" are not available for download; I'd speculate that many have not been captured digitally.

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches then the Catechism of the Catholic Church will point you in the right direction; if you want to know what was taught in the 16th century then the Roman Catechism will give you what you need; if you want to do scholarly research then you will probably need more than the catechisms and probably more than is available for download from the net - there seems to be a price for scholarship in every tradition.

Cheers

_________________
The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist.

I believe this is inaccurate. THe best place to read what is taught by the Catholic Church is any copy of the Catechism - online (Google ROman Catholic Catechism).

A catechism is instruction formatted in the form of answers to questions. Where is your's posted...my non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ?

...don't say the Bible, because I have one too, and obviously we interpret those Scripts differently...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

And even catechisms are subject to interpretation.

I understand that teachings or rulings are classified as infallible, not non-infallible, and obsequium which certainly gives leeway for application, if not definition (but see paragraph above).

You might consider systematic theologies to be such documents.

Also, non-RCs do not necessarily hold that their members should hold to a definitive teaching. The denominations do not necessarily have a hierachical structure. That is why the Baptists have a Union.

I think that evangelicals on this board would be in general agreement with The Fundamentals, but these are not credal requirements,and certainly not in their entirety. Someone else here can probably explain this better.

I have heard that the present Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a book in which he stated that he thought Matthew was an early Christian Catechism, and I think this is probably true of all the Gospels/Acts. (if you know the name of this book I would be interested.)

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

John Chaplin ... Amazon dot com has a number of books for sale written by Cardinal Ratzinger ~ you might take a look at their descriptions to see if one of them is the one that you are asking about.

_________________
PROUD MILITARY WIFE ❤ PLEASE KEEP MY WONDERFUL DH IN YOUR PRAYERS

Thanks Mollymouser,

I checked and looked at a couple of lists of his bibliograpies. I can't find it in the title, so perhaps it is just a small part of one of the books.

_________________
John

My soul looks back in wonder at how I got over

We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it comes

We do, however, have access to a great many papal "Bulls" or official "infallible" teachings. And in these we can see how past "infallible" declarations differ from more current ones.

...I believe that i can demonstrate that this is not the case, but is a common misunderstanding among those who do not understand how ex-cathedra instruction is defined...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

DogHouse, are you responding to Tonks' comment or to Marv's?

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

...Tonk's...

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

I understand there are very few specifically numbered ex cathedra statements. Nevertheless, depending on the contents the papal encyclicals are considered infallible teaching unless you are trying to say that the pope along with the magisterium do not produce ex cathedra instruction?

However, using this method of "contents" to determine infallibilty leaves the material open to endless interpretations. It seems the degree of commitment, circumstances and language is used to determine "infallibility"...again, leading to endless interpretations.

The following definition of ex cathedra or papal infallibility by Brother Ansgar Santogrossi, O.S.B., (a associate professor of philosophy at Mt. Angel Abbey and Seminary in St. Benedict, Oregon. Within the past year his doctoral dissertation was finished and accepted and he was granted a Ph.D. degree) seems to differ from what you appear to be saying, although, perhaps I misunderstand you. Here it says when the pope defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals - it is ex cathedra.

"The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church...." http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=835

Vatican I, declares the pope to be infallible when, as supreme teacher of the faithful, 'he proclaims in an "absolute" decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.' So, I guess it is left to decide what is an "absolute decision"?..which again can lead to endless interpretations.

...the determination of ex-cathedra teaching is usually done over a period of time, and not by the Pope declaring "listen up...this next utterance is ex-cathedra"


There is some truth to the above...ex-cathedra again tends to not be so much a declaration of the "here and now" but a finding that occurs with the passage of time. God's got forever, and so does the Church (in theory)...as we continue to see documents from the 4th century used widely (either for or against the Church)... the Church does indeed thoroughly investigates that which she declares as doctrine.

I believe the "endless interpretations" bit above comes from a desire that every utterance of the Pope be ex-cathedra, but i believe this comes from a lack of understanding as to just what ex-cathedra is.


Substitute the word "determine' for the word "decide" in that last sentence, and you are ore on-track...

Somewhere...somewhen...outside the Catholic Church, someone decided that ex-cathedra meant something the Pope says here and now with the preamble of "ex-cathedra" That's simply not how it works...the one I get most often is someone throwing Trent at me about Protestants being condemned (which wasn't the case), claiming that teaching as ex-cathedra, and then saying it was "reversed" at Vatican II, in that the Church now accepts the validity of all Triune Baptisms, for example.

All of this is mythology. Trent instructs that those that place themselves outside the Catholic Church are separated from her and the Sacraments of the Church. I am going to have to say that this is true...if you stand outside a building, you cannot be inside it at the same time. Vatican II simply was a reaction to this mythology to attempt to "clear the air" regarding the Church's instruction on soteriology.

And by definition, if a current teaching contradicts a previous teaching, then the previous teaching could not have been "ex-cathedra" - by definition. Some label this as "cheating", but its simply using the term as it has always been used...like it or lump it.

Catholics believe that the revelation of God to His people is on-going, and not static or stagnant. Even though we have a finite set of words in a finite set of Scriptures, we continue to see how those words are implied to cultural, social and technological changes that occur with humans - the Bible is as valid today as it ever was. This s because we continue to learn how the instruction of Scripture is used to instruct us on stem cell research and internet usage, for example, which the Church assists us with in continuing to discern revelation related to these new advances (or declines) in existing.

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think much of what you are saying is well-intentioned bunk. There are many ex-Catholics here who know your church quite well. Did you know that? I am no longer interested in debating it. It's not that I haven't, or haven't done it in the past, even against a pro apologist, I just have no interest anymore. Moderator Mike, an ex-Catholic like me, has done the best refutation of this party line in the past, other than myself. I was raised Catholic, taught by nuns and priests in school. Just so you know. Carry on. I don't intend to bother you any more.

_________________
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,"
behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION" --
The apostle Paul, NASB

Call it what you will but if the pope in conjuction with the magisterium or bishops(as in a council) declares on a matter of faith and morals - it is called infallible which means, according to your church's scholars ex cathedra.

Yes, so you've said, however, you haven't offered any evidence that what a pope says "today" on matters of faith and morals is not infallible/ex cathedra until some later date.

It's an assumption and somewhat condescending to say we are ignorant as to what constitutes infallibility/ex cathedra. The fact that your church has changed its teaching on certain faith and morals dogmas seems to readily suggest "endless interpretations". We have a very decent explanation of infallible/ex cathedra from a RCC scholar.

Determine?...decide?...the same definition for both words. The above explanation says nothing about the need for a time frame to know an infallible/ex cathedra statement nor does it imply the need for "determining" whether a matter is one of faith and morals.

Again, I know of no one who thinks that a pope first declares...listen up..here's an ex cathedra statement. This idea obviously is founded "somewhere...somewhen" inside your church.

You get it for a good reason - it's true. Your church, by way of papal encyclicals, councils, etc. has condemned all those outside of itself for over a thousand years. I'm confident that you will get no support in declaring the canons of Trent to not be infallible. This is one infallible decision that was decidedly undone.

What mythology? It is a historical fact that your church declared that no one outside of itself can be saved...and now it doesn't.

If a faith and morals dogma has been issued by a pope in conjunction with the teaching authority in a council - it is infallible/ex cathedra - according to the above scholar. And if said dogma is later changed, actually eliminated, then an infallible/ex cathedra dogma is de facto no longer infallible/ex cathedra. I think to say otherwise qualifies as mythology.

You are free to think that...as free as I am to think you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have been full communion with the Roman Catholic Church for almost 50 years. Every day, every week, every year. It amuses me when "ex-Catholics" who left the Church as teenagers are held up as a greater expertise and authority than someone such as myself, who has participate in this faith for 3 teenage lifetimes, and continues to do so.

I always applaud the opportunity to discuss Catholic faith with "ex-Catholics", especially if there is a large audience...

Certainly formative in my faith and the choices I have made exercising it are "ex-Protestants" who have come into full communion with the Church; some of whom I have sponsored through RCIA.

I have been regularly participating in the threads at Christianity.com for the last 8 years, defending Roman Catholic faith in over 8,000 posts over there. I came here at the invitation of another former Crosswalk poster. I am quite aware of the landscape out there in terms of Protestants, Catholics, EO and "ex-" just about anything. If any "ex-Catholic" who is also an "expert" on the Catholic Church cares to discuss the Church, I encourage them to do so.

_________________
..."Absence of evidence" is not "Evidence of absence"...