[Chrysostom]

(Previous) Second question: when the Pope teaches Ex Cathedra, is he simply presenting/interpreting the deposit of Divine Tradition which was passed on orally by the Apostles, or has he sometimes had a new revelation? In other words, is an Ex Cathedra teaching to be understood an the imparting and interpreting of Divine Tradition (or Scripture) to the masses, or is it to be understood as a source of information on top of Tradition and Scripture? - Mustbenothing

(Katholish) An Ex-Cathedra teaching must be concerning the areas of either Faith or Morals. In one sense, neither of these change, as they both have objective standards. So it can be said that what is true in the realm of Faith and Morals, in the objective sense for the Early Church, and the Church today must be the same. Thus, the an Ex-Cathedra teaching cannot directly contradict anything in the Sacred Scriptures or Divine Tradition, as all are sources of infallible knowledge, and those infallible truths do not change.

In another sense though, while these truths do not change, they are not always fully known or understood at all times, and in some instances in the area of Morality, new technology creates needs for pronouncements on certain issues, Human cloning and artificial Birth Control for examples.

Ex-Cathedra though, is generally though, a translation or re-emphasization of Divine Tradition and the Holy Scriptures. This is as I understand it.

(Me) Let's take two case examples. First, the RCC doctrines on Mary (e.g., Immaculate Conception). Now, I understand completely that they are viewed as having always been true. However, I'm wondering if knowledge of their truth was supposed to be a) part of the deposit of oral tradition passed down by the Apostles, b) taught fully by the Holy Scriptures and just not understood until that (those) point(s) in time, or c) hidden previously, but revealed directly by God to the Church.

Second, let's take the declaration of the Canon. Again, I understand that it is viewed as having always been objectively true that the certain books which compose the canon were authored by God, and they just hadn't been fully and formally recognized yet. However, did understanding of their status as Scripture, and the proceeding declaration of the canon list, come from a) Divine Tradition, b) the Scripture, or c) Direct Revelation? I would also be interested to know how provincial councils are supposed to operate (considering that they probably haven't received direct revelation and, at least I believe, are not supposed to be the guardians of the deposit of oral tradition), and why later councils gave different canonical lists (i.e., the addition of the purportedly deuterocanonical books).

If there is a fourth option that I have overlooked, write it in

[Chrysostom]

(Katholish) Essentially, those teachings taught by Christ, but not written in the Scriptures, passed orally on by the Apostles. That is the simple answer. Of course though, that can be expounded upon. For an example, I might point to the sacraments, which, while all receiving mention in onr form or another in the Scriptures themselves, were presented by the Apostles who explained, promoted, and ministered them. To add to the simple definition though, there it would also include such things that the Holy Spirit caused to be understood in the Church from its earliest time. I should point out, that at one time Divine Tradition was the main source of Infallible knowledge, of course Peter's authority to promulgate ex-Cathedra teachings existed, but such promulgations had not taken place in any great number. Before the Spritures were written (referring to the New Testament works of course) they were not available to guild the Church in matters resulting from the New Covenant. As far as an infallible source, Divine Tradition was all the early Church had to go on concerning those matters not cover or changed from the Old Testament. Obviously my answer cannot be comprehensive, but please ask for clarification on specific points if you so wish.

(Me) I have a few more questions about the nature of Divine Tradition. Was all Divine Tradition passed down from the Apostles? Was all Divine Tradition that we have today passed through the Popes? Who holds the deposit of Divine tradition -- the Church generally, the magisterium, or the Pope? If the magisterium, please define it and briefly describe who is in it.

[Chrysostom]

(Katholish) No, all Protestants are not condemned to Hell forever by these councils. I defined the difference between Formal and Material Heresy for this reason. The Council documents are and were directed at those people who were members in the institutional Catholic Church.

(Me) Do you view Cyprian's standard (One cannot have God for his Father if he does not have the Church for his Mother) as referring to the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, or to the visible Church across the world, which includes Protestants?

[Katholish]

(Me) Let's take two case examples. First, the RCC doctrines on Mary (e.g., Immaculate Conception). Now, I understand completely that they are viewed as having always been true. However, I'm wondering if knowledge of their truth was supposed to be a) part of the deposit of oral tradition passed down by the Apostles, b) taught fully by the Holy Scriptures and just not understood until that (those) point(s) in time, or c) hidden previously, but revealed directly by God to the Church.

If you don't mind, I will seperate the two doctrines just to make it a little easier to structure my response. I can cover option "C" in a general format though. There are two different kinds of Revelation, Public and Private. All public revelation is required to be accepted. The forms of Public revelation are Divine Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures (Ex-Cathedra pronouncements are seen as a direct result of those two, and in many ways no seperate). There is also private revelation, which not required to believe. An example of private revelation is Our Lady's appearance at Fatima. A Catholic is not required to believe that our Lady evered appeared. (I personally do, but that is another matter.) That being said, the popes or councils do not receive direct revelation in the sense that God directly tells them what is truth. In the same sense, we would not say that the Gospel writers received direct revelation, even though their works were inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself. The one exception of course being the Book of Revelation, which was indeed direct revelation, as the information was given St. John directly. Thus option "C" is not a correct representation.

The Immaculate Conception:
To my knowledge, this declaration was both "A" and "B". The direct Sciptural passages being found in the First Chapter of Luke:

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

This verse was not interpreted by all early Christian to mean that Mary was conceived without sin, but this verse is viewed as Scriptural support for that understanding. Divine Tradition was the real means of origin for this doctrine. Sts. Paul and Peter, and possibly John knew the holy bishop of Smyrna (Asia Minor), St. Polycarp. He was one of the disciples of St. Paul and had received his instruction at least in part from the apostles themselves. St. Polycarp died a martyr's death in the coliseum of Symrna. The story of his execution was miracles though, but this is not the appropriate place for me to go into details. The point is that St. Polycarp himself had a disciple, Irenaeus, whom received Holy Orders and was sent into Gaul in an effort of conversion. Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons, and was one of the greatest scholars of the Church at that time (mid-second century). He wrote a famous work "Against Heresies". I should note that both Irenaeus and Polycarp are Fathers of the Church (considered so by the main body of Protestants as well as Catholics). St. Irenaeus learned his faith from Polycarp, who learned it directly from the Apostles (it is important to understand the direct connection). It is from St. Irenaeus that we first learn of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception implicitly. He draws the comparison of Mary being the "New Eve" just as Her Divine Son was the New Adam as is found in Scripture. The implied arguement being that Mary was essentially given Eve's decision, she being a virgin and without sin, was not inclined toward sin as we all were as a punishment for our parents first sin, Mary thus had a completely free Free Will, and she choose God. The doctrine was further developed along the line of Church Fathers, St. Augustine calling her immaculate. This doctrine was clearly part of Divine Tradition as well has having grounding in the Scriptures. (I cannot believe I wrote so much, for so reason on this board, my usual brevity in posts leaves me.) If you wanted a better look at the issue of the Immaculate Conception, I would recomment Cardinal John Henry Newman, he is 1,000 times the apologist that I could even hope to be.

http://www.cin.org/liter/memoimma.html

Being that it is 1:40am, I am going to have to address your other questions at a later date. Also, in case you were wondering, I don't copy and paste anything, these are all of my own words.

[Lyle]

Here are some questions that came to my mind when I was reading the post above. This is aimed at Katholish for him to answer...

1. With this Saint Paul, Saint Peter Stuff. Where does this come from. For the Bible states that any Christian is a saint..

2. With the other ones. St. Polycarp, ect. (This is based that if someone has St. at the beginning of their name it means that they are better then the aveage person, so this might be excused by the answering of question 1.) How could they get such postions, since the word of God had only gone forth, for the most part once, and that's when Jesus sent out the 12. Now to my understanding Peter died not to long after Jesus ascended back into heaven.... But yeah

3.

28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

I didn't see the bearing this verse had on anything...

In Christ,
Lyle

[Wally]

saying that the Peter is given authority, where does the idea that it is to be passed down outlined in scripture? that is something that is very important and to say it is "Divine Tradition" is really strecthing it in my opinion.

[Chrysostom]

(Wally) saying that the Peter is given authority, where does the idea that it is to be passed down outlined in scripture? that is something that is very important and to say it is "Divine Tradition" is really strecthing it in my opinion.

(Me) Catholics find support for that believe in Christ's giving Peter the "keys" to the kingdom. I presented my interpretation of that passage previously in this thread (page 3).

[Chrysostom]

(Katholish) Being that it is 1:40am, I am going to have to address your other questions at a later date.

(Me) For anybody reading this discussion, she will be gone for a while, so the discussion will be on pause until she returns.




(Katholish) Also, in case you were wondering, I don't copy and paste anything, these are all of my own words.

(Me) I know

[Wally]

just for clarification, the RCC believes that because Peter was supposedly "given the keys" and became the "pope", he was also given the right to hand the keys to someone else?

where do they get the things the pope can and can not do?

[joelsdad]

There have been more than two. The Councils of Trent and Vatican I produced many infallible declarations. There were certainly more than two, as I can name more than that myself.

Correct me if I am wriong, but I thought only the Pope (though I am sure acting with the college of Cardinals and the bishoips) could declare ex cathedra teachings. If that is so then since the reformation time there is only 2 ex cathedra revelations or teachings--The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. There are many other declarative statements made by the church I agree but in all my research none of these (ie Council of Trent) were declared ex cathedra.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by Iliv2serv

Here are some questions that came to my mind when I was reading the post above. This is aimed at Katholish for him to answer...

1. With this Saint Paul, Saint Peter Stuff. Where does this come from. For the Bible states that any Christian is a saint..

2. With the other ones. St. Polycarp, ect. (This is based that if someone has St. at the beginning of their name it means that they are better then the aveage person, so this might be excused by the answering of question 1.) How could they get such postions, since the word of God had only gone forth, for the most part once, and that's when Jesus sent out the 12. Now to my understanding Peter died not to long after Jesus ascended back into heaven.... But yeah

3.

I didn't see the bearing this verse had on anything...

In Christ,
Lyle

1. Lyle, your understanding of the Title "saint" as bestowed on persons canonized by the Catholic Church is flawed.

Youre of course absolutely right in saying that the Bible declares all Christians to be saints. However, the Church recognizes that some people learn to emulate the Gospel better if they have real-life examples of how certain people lived the Gospel. I, for instance, find a lot of inspiration from reading about the life of the Columbine martyr Rachel Joy Scott, because of the fact that she was a high school student who was "normal" - except for the fact that she lived full-on for God every day of her life and strived to serve His Will constantly, and ultimately paid with her life for professing Christ as Lord and Master of her life. (more on that later)

However, the Catholic Church officially recognizes some people with the title "Saint" because of their

1. Crucial role in the Church, such as St. Paul, evangelist and Apostle, and St. Peter, evangelist and Bishop of Rome.
2. Vibrant Christian faith that the Church feels could be an example of the Gospel that Christians in various walks of life can identify with (like me with Rachel)
3. A combination of these two.

Although the Catholic Church does not officially canonize some people, because of the Doctrine of the Communion of Saints, one could, if one wanted, ask a Christian who has fallen asleep in God to pray for them to the Lord. The Title "Saint" just recognizes certain people as exemplary Christians , it doesnt mean that other Christians aren't saints.


Its confusing, I know, but I hope that helps,
God bless,
Ryan

[Dr. Doom]

Originally Posted by Katholish

While I am not familiar with that council document, it is nevertheless true in a sense. As Christ's Vicar on Earth the pope has a unique position among men. Clearly though, there was no implication that that authority was temporal. I would add though, that the Council of Florence didn't give the pope any authority. (If this issue was addressed by the Council) It would merely have affirmed that this authority exists, and has always existed since Christ first appointed Peter head of the Church, giving to him the power to bind and loose.

So you are saying that Peter (or the current Pope) decides whether someone has lost salvation or not?

Originally Posted by Katholish

Titus 3:
10. A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
11. Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

i don't see how this comes close to even being remotely relevant to the Chruch's authority.

[Katholish]

Ok, I shall do my best to pick up exactly where we left off.

Mustbenothing: Second, let's take the declaration of the Canon. Again, I understand that it is viewed as having always been objectively true that the certain books which compose the canon were authored by God, and they just hadn't been fully and formally recognized yet. However, did understanding of their status as Scripture, and the proceeding declaration of the canon list, come from a) Divine Tradition, b) the Scripture, or c) Direct Revelation?

As I mentioned in my response on the Immaculate Conception, option "C" is not correct, at least in the "direct" sense of the term. As I had mentioned in our other debate on the canon, though there is an active participation of the Holy Spirit to ensure accuracy, thus, while you wouldn't say that there is "direct" revelation, the unseen guildance of the Holy Spirit is a critical aspect of these decisions. Here was what I said in the other debate:

When making infallible declarations, councils and popes, have two main components in the decision. The first one is the temporal human one. Any of these decisions are made only after exhaustive study, gatherings all available sources relating to the material and question at hand. Particular preference is given to any assistance offered by the known infallible sources, Scripture, Tradition, and past Ex-Cathedra declarations (now in this case of the Canon, only Divine Tradition would have been of real aid). The men involved make the best decision that they can after their review of the issues. This is usually never a hard decision, as the answer seems always glaring, given the sources of infallible knowledge already listed. In this case, the decision of the Canon was easy, but possibly not as easy as most others have been particularly on the issues of the Deutrocanonical books as they were contested more so that many other questions. Of course, though, their was no lack of evidence and support to guild their correct decision from a human point of view.


That is the human aspect of the Ex-Cathedra pronouncement, but there is the mystical aspect as well. As mentioned above, the Holy Spirit preserves the visible Church from error, as she is the bride of Christ (my reasoning does not rest on the "bride of Christ" analogy alone, so please do not let that be a point of rejection of my point), Thus the "human aspect" is not really seperable from the Divine, since it is the Holy Spirit that ensures their correct decision. Thus it was the two aspects of the decision that lead the Holy Fathers of the councils and the pontiff to their declarations.

To more directly answer your question though, I would again say that both "A" and "B" were critical components, though in this particular instance, Scripture was more difficult to use as a source, for it would be circular logic to use the Scriptures to prove the Scriptures infallible. Divine Tradition would have played a significant role, particularly in the Old Testament Canon, but from the human aspect of the decision, and considering the revelatively late date that it was finally settled, the Holy Spirit's role as protector of Christ's Church made a significant contribution has it was manifested throught the history of the Church until the time of the settlement of the Canon. We can see examples in different statements before the settlement such as St. Athanasius's list of the New Testament canon, but it was up to the Vicar of Christ to settle any differences in the opinions of the members of the Church.

Mustbenothing: I would also be interested to know how provincial councils are supposed to operate (considering that they probably haven't received direct revelation and, at least I believe, are not supposed to be the guardians of the deposit of oral tradition), and why later councils gave different canonical lists (i.e., the addition of the purportedly deuterocanonical books).

The local synods and councils are basically a collective exercise of the authority of bishop that each of its members hold. The reason that the local councils of Carthage and Hippo have authority is not on their own accord, but because their findings were officially approved and promulgated by the Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff. In fact the documents from the Council of Carthage themselves, state that the findings of the Council must be approved by the Church of Rome in order to have weight. It is the pope's authority that makes the declaration of the Canon infallible, and that is why it is called Ex-Cathedra.

As for later councils giving different lists, would you mind letting me know what you are referring to? The Canon approved by the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome, is the same Canon approved by the ecumenical councils of Florence and Trent over 1,000 years later.

[Katholish]

I have a few more questions about the nature of Divine Tradition. Was all Divine Tradition passed down from the Apostles? Was all Divine Tradition that we have today passed through the Popes? Who holds the deposit of Divine tradition -- the Church generally, the magisterium, or the Pope? If the magisterium, please define it and briefly describe who is in it.

I am going to be completely honest with you. I cannot definitively answer your first question. As a rule, Divine Tradition is passed through the Apostles. I am not positive, however, if there are or can be any execeptions to that.

I don't fully understand your question about the popes and Tradition. If you are asking if each pope has had complete knowledge of the Divine Traditions, and passed them down personally, then no.

Has for who interprets the deposit of Divine Tradition, it is interpreted by that same authority that interprets the Sacred Scriptures, the Magisterium of the Church. Magisterium is just the Latin for teaching authority. The Magisterium consists of the Pope and the bishops in union with the pope.

Mustbenothing: Do you view Cyprian's standard (One cannot have God for his Father if he does not have the Church for his Mother) as referring to the Roman Catholic Church as an institution, or to the visible Church across the world, which includes Protestants?

While I am not familiar with that quote of Cyprian's, I find no fault with the concept. Essentially though, you are asking how a Catholic defines the Church. The easiest way that I can asnwer that is to say that Baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the Church, and the Church recognizes the validity of the sacrament of Baptism if done with proper form, matter, and intent, so yes, Protestants can be members of the Church, though not apart of the institutional Church. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. I hope that answered your question.

[Katholish]

Iliv2serv: 1. With this Saint Paul, Saint Peter Stuff. Where does this come from. For the Bible states that any Christian is a saint..
2. With the other ones. St. Polycarp, ect. (This is based that if someone has St. at the beginning of their name it means that they are better then the aveage person, so this might be excused by the answering of question 1.) How could they get such postions, since the word of God had only gone forth, for the most part once, and that's when Jesus sent out the 12. Now to my understanding Peter died not to long after Jesus ascended back into heaven.... But yeah

The Church defines a saint as one of the Blessed in Heaven. When we call someone a saint, we are generally referring to those persons who have been canonized saints, which is essentially the Church's official declaration that that person is in Heaven, and may be publically venerated. The process of canonization, results in an infallible declaration from the pope, which is a definitive statement whether the person is in Heaven. The process does not work in reverse though, no individual is declared not to be in Heaven either. As Icthus pointed out, there are many people who are saints who are not officially canonized.

As for the date of the death of St. Peter, he was crucified in the mid 60's AD, so it was at least 30 years after Christ's death. I did not understand why you mentioned it though.

Wally: saying that the Peter is given authority, where does the idea that it is to be passed down outlined in scripture? that is something that is very important and to say it is "Divine Tradition" is really strecthing it in my opinion.

I am sorry if you find Divine Tradition "stretching it", but perhaps you can take consolation in the fact that the primacy of the successors of St. Peter was an established fact throughout the history of the Church. You can find numerous examples among the Fathers of the Church, even the eariest ones like St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Church in Rome. Since the Death of St. Peter, there has been an unbroken line of succession, from St. Linus, the Second Pope, to John Paul II, the 264th Pope.

Am I to assume from the wording of your question though, that you agree that St. Peter held the authority in the first place, but that this authority was not continued to his successors, or do you dispute the fact the St. Peter ever held this authority?