255 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Church

hinault

This is an interesting link which lists 255 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Church, and it makes for interesting reading for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dogmas-Of-The-Faith.pdf

The 102 truths not yet define by the Magisterium makes for interesting reading too.

That link is a great resource for Catholics to remind them of what constitutes an essential part (s) of our faith.

looksee

I find it difficult to understand why it should be of interest to non-Catholics, it seems to me to be the absolute epitome of the egocentrism and self-absorption of the Catholic church. In reaching so desperately to explain god, it becomes effectively a denial.

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand why it should be of interest to non-Catholics . . .

Because non-Catholics might be interested in Catholicism? Is that such a stretch?

looksee wrote: »

. . . it seems to me to be the absolute epitome of the egocentrism and self-absorption of the Catholic church. In reaching so desperately to explain god, it becomes effectively a denial.

There you go, you see. You're interested in what hinault posted - interested enough to comment on it. QED.

Probably worth noting also that a large chunk of hinault's list is based on teachings proclaimed by pre-Reformation (and frequently pre-Great Schism) Councils, and accepted by most or all mainstream Christian traditions.

I completely agree with you (and I imagine hinault would too) that the ineffable truth of God can't be reduced to one-liners, even 255 one-liners. Everything we say about God is inadequate. But that doesn't mean that we don't try to say things about God, or that our attempts to do so are indications of egocentrism and self-absorbtion, or an effective denial of God. If they are, you have no basis for confining your strictures to the Catholic Church; the historic creeds are even more condensed than this in their attempt to explain the mysteries of Trinity and Incarnation.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

Probably worth noting also that a large chunk of hinault's list is based on teachings proclaimed by pre-Reformation (and frequently pre-Great Schism) Councils, and accepted by most or all mainstream Christian traditions.

I completely agree with you (and I imagine hinault would too) that the ineffable truth of God can't be reduced to one-liners, even 255 one-liners. Everything we say about God is inadequate. But that doesn't mean that we don't try to say things about God, or that our attempts to do so are indications of egocentrism and self-absorbtion, or an effective denial of God. If they are, you have no basis for confining your strictures to the Catholic Church; the historic creeds are even more condensed than this in their attempt to explain the mysteries of Trinity and Incarnation.

Given the amount of references to dogma made by posters on this site I thought that the list might be of interest to those posters and of interest generally to people who appear to want to know what the Catholic faith holds to be true.

If you're a Catholic of a certain age a lot of what is contained in the list we know because we received specific instruction in what the Church holds to be true.

I seldom hear of the dogmas of the church being taught these days, but that is a separate issue.

Your point about condensing the truth about God in to one line statements is well made.
But if one required chapter and verse to substantiate each of those 255 dogmas, the list would require literally tonnes of pages to be read, assimilated and understood.

The fact that many of those 255 dogmas were created pre Reformation is very interesting as you say.

uck51js9zml2yt

Well that was interesting reading, apart from some of it being totally unbiblical.

Mary referred to Christ being her Saviour. If he was without sin why her need of a Saviour.

As for "ever virgin". Scripture mentions other siblings by name.
Also who says she was the mother of God. She was the mother of the person of Jesus. But as God is Triune , she was not His mother.

But lets not let Biblical Truth get in the way of Dogma


And don't get me started on "infallibility" !!

hinault

Peter Moldy Ufo wrote: »

Well that was interesting reading, apart from some of it being totally unbiblical.

Mary referred to Christ being her Saviour. If he was without sin why her need of a Saviour.

As for "ever virgin". Scripture mentions other siblings by name.
Also who says she was the mother of God. She was the mother of the person of Jesus. But as God is Triune , she was not His mother.

But lets not let Biblical Truth get in the way of Dogma


And don't get me started on "infallibility" !!

You should pen a letter to the Pope c/o Vatican City explaining why those dogmas are incorrect.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

You should pen a letter to the Pope c/o Vatican City explaining why those dogmas are incorrect.

Do you believe the Marian references in what you posted are true? Because as tatranska said, there is no scripture to support them.

uck51js9zml2yt

keano_afc wrote: »

Do you believe the Marian references in what you posted are true? Because as tatranska said, there is no scripture to support them.

Really stupid question (no insult intended) . of course he does.
Dogma over scripture every time. Isn't that right hinault ?

hinault

Given the ongoing friction between traditional and more liberal elements within the Church

146. The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church

Dogma = truth.

homer911

A polite thank you to hinault for posting, even though I dont agree with a considerable number of the statements here

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Given the ongoing friction between traditional and more liberal elements within the Church



Dogma = truth.

So the pope makes a statement about himself saying he has ultimate authority........ Right.....a polite thank you for telling us.

hinault

homer911 wrote: »

A polite thank you to hinault for posting, even though I dont agree with a considerable number of the statements here

You're welcome Homer.

The list is reproduced to give Catholics here a list of what we as followers are required to accept and believe.

For non-catholics the list might offer some further insight in to what the Church holds to be true.
The fact that non-catholics don't hold to some or all of those items listed is a separate issue.

hinault

Peter Moldy Ufo wrote: »

So the pope makes a statement about himself saying he has ultimate authority........

Only where the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

It is seldom that a Pope in modern times has had to speak ex cathedra.

Of course every Pope is bound by the ex cathedra pronouncements made by his 265 predecessors.

uck51js9zml2yt

Another question hinault

I always thought Christ was Head of His Church and therefore had supreme authority over it.

Am. i right in believing the pope doesn't believe this? The statement says he doesn't.

hinault

Peter Moldy Ufo wrote: »

Another question hinault

I always thought Christ was Head of His Church and therefore had supreme authority over it.

Am. i right in believing the pope doesn't believe this? The statement says he doesn't.

The gospels tell that Jesus conferred authority to St.Peter during His lifetime.

Authority is Jesus to confer.
He chose Peter. And He chose to allow Peter, in His name, to exercise authority.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

The gospels tell that Jesus conferred authority to St.Peter during His lifetime.

Authority is Jesus to confer.
He chose Peter. And He chose to allow Peter, in His name, to exercise authority.

He gave Peter the responsibility of opening heaven to both the Jews and gentiles. We see that he brought the gospel to both groups in Acts.
Job done.
There is no mention of succession anywhere.
There is still no mention of Peter or anyone else having supreme authority over the church. If that was the case Peter wouldn't have been chastised over his treatment of the gentiles when the Jews arrived on the scene.

hinault

Peter Moldy Ufo wrote: »

He gave Peter the responsibility of opening heaven to both the Jews and gentiles. We see that he brought the gospel to both groups in Acts.
Job done.
There is no mention of succession anywhere.
There is still no mention of Peter or anyone else having supreme authority over the church. If that was the case Peter wouldn't have been chastised over his treatment of the gentiles when the Jews arrived on the scene.

The fact that you refuse to accept what the Bible comes as no surprise at this point

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

The fact that you refuse to accept what the Bible comes as no surprise at this point

Were does it mention peter had supreme authority and where does it mention succession.
I would have thought God would have mentioned an these had they been important and not just a self declared dogma of a denomination.

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

The fact that you refuse to accept what the Bible comes as no surprise at this point

hinault

Peter Moldy Ufo wrote: »

Were does it mention peter had supreme authority and where does it mention succession..

It doesn't mention it in that edition of Luther's bible that you insist on using?

looksee

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because non-Catholics might be interested in Catholicism? Is that such a stretch?

No, its not a stretch for non-Catholics to be interested in Catholicism. What is stretch is that non-Catholics might be interested in another denomination's tedious 'angels on the head of a pin' stuff in the kind of mind numbing detail that is provided here.

There you go, you see. You're interested in what hinault posted - interested enough to comment on it. QED.

I might be puzzled enough to make an observation about hinault's post (kind of - 'you're not serious!' puzzled), that doesn't mean I have the remotest interest in the contents of the list of dogmas. I find it all very depressing. And it is ludicrous to compare it to the creeds of other churches, which are a condensed statement of belief in the essential ideas, not a lot of nit-picking detail based in some cases on not a lot.

santing

hinault wrote: »

This is an interesting link which lists 255 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Church, ...

That link is a great resource for Catholics to remind them of what constitutes an essential part (s) of our faith.

How infallible is this list?

katydid

hinault wrote: »

This is an interesting link which lists 255 Infallibly Declared Dogmas of the Church, and it makes for interesting reading for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Dogmas-Of-The-Faith.pdf

The 102 truths not yet define by the Magisterium makes for interesting reading too.

That link is a great resource for Catholics to remind them of what constitutes an essential part (s) of our faith.

This would be the Roman Catholic church...

katydid

hinault wrote: »

You're welcome Homer.

The list is reproduced to give Catholics here a list of what we as followers are required to accept and believe.

For non-catholics the list might offer some further insight in to what the Church holds to be true.
The fact that non-catholics don't hold to some or all of those items listed is a separate issue.

I'm a Catholic. I've no interest in what the bishop of Rome declares to be infallible, thanks all the same.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Only where the Pope speaks ex cathedra.

Yep, that makes sense. It's MUCH more believable, because it's not all the time...

Of course every Pope is bound by the ex cathedra pronouncements made by his 265
predecessors

.

There have been 265 popes since the declaration of infallibility in 1870?

hinault

santing wrote: »

How infallible is this list?

Completely infallible.

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Completely infallible.

Actaully, no, not really. Because of the discussion we had earlier:

Peregrinus wrote: »

I completely agree with [looksee] (and I imagine hinault would too) that the ineffable truth of God can't be reduced to one-liners, even 255 one-liners. Everything we say about God is inadequate . . .

hinault wrote: »

Your point about condensing the truth about God in to one line statements is well made.
But if one required chapter and verse to substantiate each of those 255 dogmas, the list would require literally tonnes of pages to be read, assimilated and understood.

It does require literally tonnes and tonnes of pages to be read, assimilated and understood. Even if you don't go back to the scriptural and patristic sources, even if you just look at the Council decrees, etc, that this list summarises so pithily, it's still a large volume of documentation.

But it's that volume of documentation which expresses the teaching that Catholics hold to be infallible; not this list of sound-bites.

You don't have to do too much googling to find similar but not identical lists of teachings said to have been infallibly proclaimed. For example, this list has 249. This list has 238. So there isn't even a one-to-one correspondence between these suspiciously precise lists and the decrees, teachings, etc of popes and councils.

These are, at best, "dummies guides" to Catholic teaching. In fact, they're really only tables of contents for dummies guides to Catholic teachin. And they're certainly not infallible. Most of them are based, directly or indirectly, on the work of Ludwig Ott, a German theologian of the 1940s and 1950s who wrote survey-type treatises on Catholic theology, for use by seminary students, but in a style that is no longer a popular teaching method today. Ott's work would have been much more thorough than the lists extracted from it but it, too, was not infallible. So these lists are a couple of "generations" removed from any source we might regard as authoritative, never mind infallible. And they omit more than 99% of the authoritative material. And they are easily misunderstood, as to which this thread provides evidence.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

katydid wrote: »

I'm a Catholic. I've no interest in what the bishop of Rome declares to be infallible, thanks all the same.

I thought every catholic recognised the bishop of Rome as Pope, whether Roman Catholic or eastern orthodox / anglican / whatever...? (but then i'm probably wrong, but I thought thats what 'catholic' meant, otherwise why use 'catholic' at all, since we're all Christians*...)

Nice post OP anyway, interesting.


*(not actually a Christian, more like lapsed catholic agnostic)

katydid

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

I thought every catholic recognised the bishop of Rome as Pope, whether Roman Catholic or eastern orthodox / anglican / whatever...? (but then i'm probably wrong, but I thought thats what 'catholic' meant, otherwise why use 'catholic' at all, since we're all Christians*...)

Nice post OP anyway, interesting.


*(not actually a Christian, more like lapsed catholic agnostic)

Anglicans don't recognise the bishop of Rome as having any authority.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

Anglicans don't recognise the bishop of Rome as having any authority.

Any special authority. He has the ordinary authority of any bishop, in the Anglican view.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

It does require literally tonnes and tonnes of pages to be read, assimilated and understood. Even if you don't go back to the scriptural and patristic sources, even if you just look at the Council decrees, etc, that this list summarises so pithily, it's still a large volume of documentation.........................yawn

Tedious waffle.

I did say earlier in the thread that if you were required to read/write the justification for each of 255 dogmatic statements listed, you would literally have to read/write thousands upon thousands of documents.
I did make this point.

The list is a list. The list is a summary of the dogmatic principles which adherents to the Catholic faith are required to believe as being the truth.

The list doesn't invalidate the basis of the justification for the statements that are included on the list.

If folk want to debate the merits of what the statements teach, that's up to them.

I've simply listed the statements to inform Catholics here of what they're required to accept as dogma (truth).

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Any special authority. He has the ordinary authority of any bishop, in the Anglican view.

I meant over them, as Catholics.

Nit picker

josephryan1989

Why doesn't his atonement extend to the fallen angels?

MrPudding

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Why doesn't his atonement extend to the fallen angels?

Because they don't exist?

MrP

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Tedious waffle.

If folk want to debate the merits of what the statements teach, that's up to them.

I've simply listed the statements to inform Catholics here of what they're required to accept as dogma (truth).

So all your willing to do is post RC doctrine without being prepared to justify it.
There was me thinking this forum was for debate!!

hinault

Peter Moldy Ufo wrote: »

So all your willing to do is post RC doctrine

There are lot of references to Dogma made by Catholics and non-catholics throughout many threads on this part of the site.

As I said in the OP, the summary list is provided for Catholics here primarily to remind them what the Church holds to be true (dogma = truth).

keano_afc

hinault wrote: »

There are lot of references to Dogma made by Catholics and non-catholics throughout many threads on this part of the site.

As I said in the OP, the summary list is provided for Catholics here primarily to remind them what the Church holds to be true (dogma = truth).

But surely those "truths" that are scripturally unsound are there to be challenged, no?

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

Tedious waffle.

I'm suprised, hinault, to hear you describe the authoritative teachings of the Catholic church, which the faithful are required to accept with religious submission of will and intellect, as "tedious waffle".

hinault wrote: »

I did say earlier in the thread that if you were required to read/write the justification for each of 255 dogmatic statements listed, you would literally have to read/write thousands upon thousands of documents.
I did make this point.

You did. Which makes it all the more surprising that you would describe the powerpoint version of the teaching as "completely infallible" - you already know why it isn't completely infallible.

hinault

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm suprised, hinault, to hear you describe the authoritative teachings of the Catholic church, which the faithful are required to accept with religious submission of will and intellect, as "tedious waffle".

I described your post as tedious waffle.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

I described your post as tedious waffle.

Is your belief regarding the RC church as a seat of infallibility, infallible. Cos if it's not then .. er..

Peregrinus

hinault wrote: »

I described your post as tedious waffle.

Meh, same difference. You claim to be concerned to call attention to infallible teaching, but when I post pointing out where authoritative teaching is actually to be found (hint: not in powerpoint-type lists of bullet points, but in the scriptures, the writings of the Fathers and the teachings of the Councils) that's "tedious waffle"?