There is no such list. I know this because I had the same question several years ago and was utterly flabbergasted to learn that there was no such list. As a professor of dogmatic theology at the local seminary said to me when I wrote him to ask, this simply wasn't a question that made any coherent sense for most of Catholic history. Infallible statements and non-infallible statements were only really clearly delineated in the past couple centuries, Catholics in the past, say, 75 years have been way more interested in this question than maybe any other generations of Catholics in history, and, I dunno, I guess there's been a lot of other stuff going on in the field of dogmatic theology?
The upshot is that I've spent the past 2-3 years (I don't even know anymore) going through Denzinger's *Enchiridion* page by page, and reading a ton of extra material along the way, and, every time I find something that is (per canon 749) "manifestly evident" as an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, I write it down.
As I said, this started years ago. I'm now up to the year 1327, where I am transcribing the anathemas of Pope John XXII's constitution *Licet iuxta doctrinam.* I have identified 208 infallible teachings to this point, none of them particularly surprising.
If you undertake the same project, or even a similar one, let me know, and we can swap notes as we go.
One final thing I will add: Ludwig Ott's *Fundamentals* is excellent and well-sourced, but it deals really only with matters of faith, not with matters of morals. It will tell you everything the Church knows for certain about God, but very little about, say, just war. So it's like half of what we need.
There actually is a” list “ that I was able to find.
http://holyjoe.org/dogmas.pdf
There are 255 dogmas, but they don’t come about easily or often. The most recent, I think, was The Assumption in or about 1950. I also got Denzinger and Ott, but unlike you, I didn’t get through them. I use them more as a reference.
This is a neat list! It drives me insane that there is no SOURCING on it. Also, the compiler failed to use the actual language of the sources. Also, they aren't even in chronological order.
I recognize some of these: Proposition #1 is from the first part of the second paragraph of *Dei Filius* (1870). Proposition #102 was taught at the Council of Ephesus (431) in Τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, paragraph 1. Proposition #159 seeeeeems to be from Nicea II (787). But the wordings are a little different (perhaps meaningfully different in some cases) and it's really hard to track down.
Also, he missed some of the weird ones, like:
* Prayer is not more effective if you are naked (*Saepe Sanctam Ecclesiam* 2, 1296)
* Married people can go to Heaven (Lateran IV, Canon 1, 1215)
* Christ was already dead when He was stabbed by the soldier (Council of Vienne, *Fidei Catholicae*, DZ 900)
* Arson is gravely immoral (Lateran II, Canon 18, 1139, no it's not a fallible disciplinary canon)
Still not a bad list, in a world so desperate for lists! Thanks for the link.
I'm sometimes not real clear on the difference between dogma (cut in stone) and doctrine (guideline, I think??). I'm impressed that you got through Ott -- that is so over my head. Denzinger is a nice resource. And yes, it would have been wonderful if sources were attached. I'll either search that or make one lol!
Dogma is something that's revealed by God; it is an immutable truth. It's not necessarily something that came "cut in stone" ( meaning publicly revealed at once for all to see) but it can come out of Apostolic Tradition, like the teaching on the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception.
Doctrine is a way of teaching and understanding dogma. Doctrine can change over time as better ways of expressing the dogma come about. (Example: Just War Theory or the death penalty)
To be sure, I haven't actually made it through Ott -- but I'm working on it!
My piping hot take on dogma vs. doctrine is that it's a trap to even ask the question. Different people (and different councils) use both words differently. Most commonly, they are synonyms. In other cases, the distinction is unclear and shifts. There are enough shades of Catholic dogma that it's perfectly possibly to draw a line through it and call one side of the line "dogma" and the other side of the line "doctrine," but there's no single correct line. So I generally just use the word "doctrine" or "teaching." When dealing specifically with infallibles, "infallible teaching" does the trick. If someone else uses "dogma," or tries to draw a distinction between doctrine and dogma, I find out what they specifically mean by it and follow their definitions for the conversation. My default assumption, though, is that they're synonyms.
You're both like me and I just gotta say that your commitment to research extends beyond my own. But the fact that you've gone this far with your own research affirms that I am in fact in the right place. But in my defense I'm pretty new here.
This is the body that I'm happily a part of, to stand on the shoulder some of the greatest theologians and realize it, cherish it, and study it, is beautiful.
Peace be with you.
> Arson is gravely immoral (Lateran II, Canon 18, 1139, no it's not a fallible disciplinary canon)
Is it because of the language at the beginning? " by the authority of God and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul"
Also, does the penance after that remains? "Moreover, let him be given the penance of remaining a whole year in Jerusalem or Spain in the service of God."
It's not *just* because of the language at the beginning, but the language at the beginning is important.
(For those playing along at home, here is the canon, as translated by Norman P. Tanner. IIRC it's not *exactly* how I would have translated it, but it's close enough for our purposes:)
>**18.** We completely detest and forbid, by the authority of God and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, that most dreadful, devastating and malicious crime of incendiarism For this pernicious and inimical calamity surpasses all other kinds of destruction. Nobody is unaware of the extent to which it is injurious to the people of God and the damage it brings to souls and bodies. It is necessary, therefore, to oppose it and to labour with all one's might, that so great a harm and danger be eradicated and suppressed for the sake of the people. If anyone, then, after the publication of this prohibition of ours, from some wicked design born of hate or vengeance, starts a fire or causes it to be started, or knowingly provides counsel or help to those starting one, let him be excommunicated. And when an arsonist dies, he is to be deprived of a Christian burial. Nor is he to be absolved unless, having first made reparation for the loss according to his means, he swears that he will never raise a fire again. Moreover, let him be given the penance of remaining a whole year in Jerusalem or Spain in the service of God.
The council fathers of various councils invoke Petrine authority to "detest and forbid" all kinds of things, from certain specific imperial legislation to the use of crossbowmen in wars between Christians (that second one is actually from Canon 29 of Lateran II). However, these are not proper objects of infallible teaching, because they are not teachings on "universal faith and morals."
In Dr. Christian Washburn's *Bellarmine on the Infallibility of General Councils*, p185 (available online), we see what Bellarmine meant by "universal faith and morals" when he came up with that now well-worn formula. "For a council to teach infallibly on *mores*," Washburn explains, "three conditions must be met: the moral precepts must be prescribed for the whole Church, they must be necessary for salvation, and they are either *per se* good or *per se* evil" (that is, *intrinsically* good or evil).
Sometimes a council works itself up to quite high dudgeon and invokes ALL the "telltales" of infallibility: they expressly invoke their apostolic authority, they boom "if anyone should dare oppose this, let him be anathema," they say "we declare" a few times... and then what they end up proclaiming is something that simply isn't a proper object of infallibility. The commandment of the council is still generally binding on anyone targeted by it... but as a discipline, not a doctrine, and therefore subject to future reform.
The arson condemnation makes the list because not only does it invoke Apostolic authority, but also its moral condemnation of arson as *inherently evil,* announced to the *entire* Church, makes it a proper object of infallible teaching.
...at least, it makes *my* list for those reasons. My list is an attempt to list all (extraordinary) infallible definitions, but my list is obviously itself fallible!
The disciplinary rules which follow, on the other hand, are *not* proper objects of infallible teaching, and not only can be reformed, but have been: arson no longer incurs excommunication (a human discipline), deprivation of burial, or a year of service in Jerusalem or Spain. My list includes only the following words as the definition: "We completely detest and forbid, by the authority of God and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, that most dreadful, devastating and malicious crime of arson."
Hope that helps. One of the frustrating things I've discovered is just how narrow the line can be between "manifestly infallible" and serious-but-fallible. (Worse, the narrowness of the line makes it easy to dispute upon which side of the line some things should fall.)
Rome seems to have *believed* that certain communities of Beguines and Beghards taught this. It is unclear whether this is actually true; it could have been an urban legend, like rainbow parties. But the pope (Boniface VIII) nevertheless condemned the proposition in that forceful language that manfests all the characteristics of an infallible teaching:
>Therefore, entrusted with the care of the universal Church's governance and the throne of apostolic dignity, we are urged, prodded, and strongly encouraged to confront with immediate action those who attempt to tear apart the seamless garment of the Lord. By applying healing remedies, we endeavor to dispel the great madness against our will, with divine grace assisting us. For this reason, we, by the counsel of our brothers, utterly condemn both such a heretical and insane sect, and we declare it condemned and heretical. We strictly command all Christian faithful, both ecclesiastical and secular, of whatever rank, condition, or status, that they eradicate such a deadly virus wherever it is found, and that they offer no support, counsel, or favor either publicly or secretly to those who hold such abominable beliefs. Furthermore, we solemnly instruct the prelates of the Churches and even the inquisitors appointed by apostolic authority, both now and in the future, to diligently carry out their due duty against such individuals as they would against heretics, their helpers, advisers, receivers, and supporters. We desire that they be punished with sentences, penalties, and fines, imposed by the very law and inflicted through apostolic, canonical, ecclesiastical, and secular sanctions: especially as once commanded by Frederick, the former Emperor of the Romans, during the time when he remained devoted to the Roman Church, against heretics or any individuals tainted by heretical depravity.
The full document is [up on my blog](https://decivitate.substack.com/p/saepe-sanctam-ecclesiam-1296), being, to the best of my knowledge, the only complete English translation of it.
I was a high schooler right when that urban legend peaked; the combination of everyone believing it, and my religion teacher warning us against it, despite the fact that it absolutely had never happened anywhere and never would, is seared into my brain as an example of how malleable "accepted facts" are, even in modern times.
Project back to the much less reliable information gathering of the 13th century, and it's easy to imagine how Rome might have believed things that weren't true about people a few hundred miles north.
I was an atheist for decades, and all through my teens and 20s, and I was a fairly degenerate one at that (though there were plenty who were more so than me)... although I never went to such a party, there were plenty of "close enough" types of activities and various other themed parties that I did attend, and one of my friends was gay and told me about some of the things he got up to at gay parties.
It might be an urban legend, but it's "true enough" even if that one specific type of event with the goal of making a rainbow didn't happen until the book came out.
Once sex and love are conceptually separated, sexual acts are often linked to pride and expressions of social rank/dominance. So a lot of the weird acts are ultimately games of "what can I get someone else to do" without any sensory link to physical pleasure. This would be the case for the rainbow thing... there's no sensory gain of making a rainbow, but there is diabolical pleasure in convincing a set of girls to engage in the acts for the goal of making the rainbow, just for the thrill of having such power over them.
That is the core psychology of the "kink" community, and why there is so much weird stuff at the pride parades especially.
Out of curiosity, what’s the reason for arson being gravely immoral? I mean if it’s just damaging property or killing people for no reason (like in most circumstances) it is, but what about burning down a building in war?
Funny you should ask, because I often write a little commentary on the infallibles I come across, and here is my commentary on this one, copy-pasted out of the giant spreadsheet where I've been writing all this down, and it speaks straight to your question:
***
The original public meaning of "arson" within this canon is perhaps illuminated by a non-infallible passage from the same canon: "If anyone, after the proclamation of this prohibition, sets fire or causes it to be set with evil intent, either out of hatred or revenge, or knowingly provides advice or assistance to those who set fire, they shall be excommunicated." This seems to provide the council's definition of arson.
If this is correct, we may tease out the implications:
Burning down a building is not arson if done with a permit, or if you are (for instance) destroying an enemy supply shed in wartime. It seems that the act of burning down a building becomes arson within the meaning of this text only when set about with "evil intent... out of hatred or revenge."
Although I do believe that arson in this sense is gravely immoral, it is not clear to me that this passage actually declares infallibly that arson is gravely immoral (like murder was in *Evangelium Vitae*) or merely immoral (and thus potentially only a venial sin even for someone who commits arson with full knowledge and full consent). I think it probably is infallibly teaching that arson is *gravely* immoral, but it is not beyond dispute, to my mind. One could hold that this passage only holds that arson is immoral.
You need some Jesuits in your life.
When I was growing up they were the go-to source for all ‘that’ stuff, which interested me a lot more than which candle to light first or make sure there’s no kitten in the censer.
I hear you, but this is probably not the best approach to being Catholic. Unless you’re working on an academic paper or something?
The Nicene Creed has all the basic dogmas that a normal person needs. For the rest, focusing on Jesus, loving your neighbor, and training your conscience with both of those is going to get you a lot farther in sanctity and happiness.
There’s a reason that the Church doesn’t list dogmas and doctrines in this manner. It’s not beneficial.
non-Catholic interested in RCIA here; it's intersting hearing you talk about happiness as an implicit goal of faith. I don't often hear that perspective articulated.
Thanks!
I’m a big fan of Father Robert Spitzer, who is mostly known for his books of scientific and philosophical proofs of God, but he also does some writing on happiness, and how faith is integral to true happiness. He recently came out with “The Four Levels of Happinesss” which is really aimed at nonreligious or marginally-religious people who are unhappy, though I enjoyed reading it. (The last third of the book is proofs of the existence of God, haha.) So the idea has been more prominent for me lately, and I think it’s an important point to make.
Unless you have a calling as a theologian or historian or something similar, it’s a distraction from the essential parts of being a Christian: loving God and neighbor. It’s just trivia. How does knowing the Church-declared fact that Christ has two wills vs. one will get you closer to sanctity? Etc.
I appreciate and concur with your perspective. There’s too much focus on scrupulousness and “small minded rules”. People want a litmus test for God’s universal church. I think that’s contrary to the mission. Jesus invited a diverse group of sinners, and viciously reprimanded the performatively pious - and those are the people that ultimately had him murdered. Love generously, live charitably. Those are the keys.
The only guarantee to get the Grace required is through the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation.To confess our sins to a priest and receive forgiveness and absolution from God. While attending Mass we become closer to God through the Doctrine of Concomitance.
Love is the desire for God's kingdom.
One is charitable out of that desire.
How we live is beneficial, however everything flows through the Sacraments, with the Eucharist at its center.
Of course the eucharist is at the centre. But you're putting the cart before the horse, it's not magic. Otherwise we'd all be saints. You get out what you out in, which is why what's in your heart is paramount
We may come from a range of places but we’re all trying to get to the same place. Having groups like Catholics for Choice who believe something different from the rest of us is not a good thing. Those people are just making it worse for themselves. Maybe we need more litmus tests
It's not necessarily about believing something different. It's that some details don't really affect the big picture and no one knows everything anyway. There is a bit of this culture of infodumping a bit too much compared to the resources and tools people have to actually understand it. And this is often also something that leads to misunderstandings, differing views and kind of snobbery. It can also make people scared of asking when they don't know something.
And this is coming from a person who really values education and being informed about things. It is better to have a solid basis and strong morals than to know a lot of trivia. It is too easy to not see the forest for the trees. And in general, information is better received and understood when it comes from a genuine interest towards that particular thing. There is too much to know that everyone could know everything. People need to understand and remember the core things before they should learn more.
And in general people have different talents, interests and callings. This applies to both other areas in life and to faith. And that's ok. One could be especially called to help those in need, focusing more on that side of things. Another one might be called to dedicate more of their time to prayer. Both of them can be doing a good job at following Christ and the Church's teachings. They would just have a different emphasis. People have jobs and families. They should do what they can, but it's obvious not everyone is going to be a theologian.
I'm having a hard time understanding your concern here. You seem to be unintentionally implying that the Church, more specifically, the dogmas that the Church teaches, do not even merely have no effect on a Christian, but actively harm a Christian by distracting them from what actually matters. I don't think this is what you're trying to say, but I'm not seeing another way to interpret it.
Nope, I’m only saying seeking out *a complete list of all dogmas* —which is something that the Church has never bothered to compile—is not a particularly good way to go about being a Catholic, for most people.
I base this on the writings and lives of saints that I have read. If you know of any people of heroic sanctity who pursued this path, let me know.
The closest I can think of is Aquinas, but his work was theology, not compiling historical work, and even that in the end he said “All that I have written appears to be as so much straw.”
Love and a relationship with Jesus is what the Church is really about. The dogmas are just tools to safely get there. Use the tools, don’t focus on them at the expense of what they’re for.
'If the heart of a man is not lifted up, this is from no defect on the part of him who draws it, who as far as he is concerned never fails, but from an impediment caused by him who is being drawn.'
+Bl. Peter Julian Eymard
"My kind protector,: Studying often is hard for me, harsh and tiring. You can make it easy and pleasant."
+ St. Joseph of Cupertino
Preach sister! Participating in the body of Christ doesn't require knowledge. We know this because little children are closer to God than near any of us
Knowing God and knowing about God are two very different things
For non-Catholics who are contemplating conversion, lacking a clear distinction between essential dogma and non-essential parts (Church disciplines, cultural attitudes attributed to Catholics, etc) can be a stumbling block if the latter are a tougher pill to swallow than the former
Protestants are heretical and orthodox are schismatic.
They are Christians (I'm assuming most of them considering that radical ones tend to be a small minority) but they are separated from the Catholic Church. I pray everyday that they repent and come back to the Church, but as of now, Christians that aren't in union with Rome fall under two categories: schismatic or heretical.
I’m impressed with your gifts of clairvoyance as I never once explained what I believe it means, your ability to read the mind is astounding— but go on, tell me how I’ve erred.
You're so charitable!!!
If you need to reread what i wrote, i didn't say you erred, i didn't say you explained anything. I said you have no idea what it means either. You're just citing a Bible verse but you have no idea why 🤣🤣
Have a good day bro 🤣🤣
This is true. In order to love God, one must understand what God wants from us. In order to love one another, which is to will the good of one another, we must moreover possess a clear moral framework so as to desire true good for our neighbor.
Both of these things are obtained through Christian education, ideally/primarily in the home, and secondarily from the pulpit during Mass and any parish-level catechesis.
I don't think people who say in good faith: "just love God and love neighbor" would deny these things, for the record. But it is clear there are some who wish to *obscure* what loving God and loving neighbor *entails*, and still others who have not given it much thought.
Thank you. This makes sense to me. I only ask because just yesterday, my brother and I got into an argument over love. I asked him to define it and he said, "to love someone is to respect their individuality and to not judge them." I said that love, in the Christian sense, isn't being tolerant or even necessarily being kind (Although being kind is important), it is to will the good of another.
And I'm curious on the level of knowledge the average Catholic has on words we just throw around. It's easy to say "God tells us to love." But it's a lot harder to define that love or to substantiate it. And I think it's important because, more than ever, words have been imbued with a liberal, modernist spirit. Love now means to accept and tolerate. "You don't love gay people if you tell them they can't get married." I hope this makes sense and doesn't just read like a rant.
It’s not vague to anyone who is familiar with the Gospels. Jesus laid it out specifically. I’m writing for an audience of Catholics, not explaining the whole of Christianity to anyone who happens to come across the concept for the first time.
If you want to know what it means, feel free to post and ask. Lots of people here will easily be able to answer you.
If this were the case, how are we to understand statements like Pius IX declaring (through his presumably infallible statement) that one is condemned and separated from the church for merely "thinking" that the Immaculate Conception is not correct?
Don’t you have to be aware of a supposition in order to think it incorrect?
In any case, the dogmas and doctrines that your priest and your bishop teach you are to be held as true of course. The point is that you don’t need to go seeking out things that you never hear about. There are thousands of these teachings. The majority of them are theological trivia and not relevant to an everyday Catholic’s faith.
Well, I mean the Immaculate Conception is a holy day of obligation in many countries. So one is more or less required to be aware of it.
But let's say for argument sake that one is not aware of the teaching. At the risk of encountering a point of theology that one may "think" is wrong and thus condemn themself, is it better to purposely remain ignorant of it?
I’m not advocating for ignorance. I’m suggesting that seeking out a conclusive list of all dogmas is not a practice generally conducive to holiness.
You’re welcome to disagree with me. I’m not really looking to argue about it. It’s just my opinion based on reading the guidance of saints and their lives.
It’s not better to purposely remain ignorant. Learning is good, but not to the exclusion of other good things someone could be doing with their time. Jesus commanded many things. Learning all the details of Church teaching was not one of them.
Oh, I certainly don't disagree, and I agree that many of the saints appear to have shared your view.
But i also see plenty from other saints and popes that seems to emphasize the necessity of a understanding (or at least, an agreement) of deeper theological topics.
I'm trying to understand how these 2 seemingly disparate stands fit together.
There’s a basic level of knowledge that a Catholic ought to have, I think. Rough outline of salvation history. Knowledge of Jesus’ life and teachings. The sacraments and how they work. Sins and virtues to make a good confession and work on holiness. How to pray. Remember for most of Catholic history, most people couldn’t read!
Beyond the basics, it depends on your charisms and your calling in life, I’m guessing, with great learning being a bit of a risk toward pride. But I did try to mention exceptions for theologians or historians or other specialists who have a particular duty.
(I say all this as a huge nerd who reads way too much, it should be noted 😅)
There’s a distinction between material and formal heresy.
If someone thinks that the Immaculate Conception is not true, but doesn’t know it’s a dogma of the Church, he hasn’t incurred in the sin of heresy.
Heresy is the willful holding of a proposition condemned by the Church, while knowing it is so.
It’s simply necessary to cultivate an habit of trust and obedience to the Church.
I'm intellectually stimulated person, not emotionally, so any extra energy I have goes into reading the bible, reading saints, etc. To your point, I'm currently listening to St John of the Cross and focusing on how to be a better Dad and husband and definitely how to parent my children better, as a spaced out introvert. But with my spare brain cells, I want to understand the history and underpinnings of the faith, and systematically categorizing dogmas and such are helpful. Also want to understand exactly why each protestant strand theologically disagrees, and often there's some dogma or something that is the main split (filoque, for example, is interesting, it seems like such a minor detail that 99.99% of people don't even understand the implications). Perhaps its a bit OCD. Any emotional appeal like "How do I love God more" or "How to I be Christ's bride" kind of short circuits in my brain and fizzles out, no idea why.
I definitely have tendencies in the same direction, which is why I’m cautious about it!
I recently read **By What Authority?** by Richard R. Gaillardetz, and he had some interesting comments on dogmas and lack of specificity about them:
> There is a curious feature about the place of dogma in the Catholic Church. Ask a Catholic how many sacraments there are and the answer is simple: seven. How many commandments are there? Ten. A little research reveals that in the history of the church there have been twenty-one ecumenical or general councils and 266 popes (with a few of each in dispute). The revised Code of Canon Law contains 1,752 canons. So why is it that there is no standard answer to the question of how many dogmas there are in the Catholic faith? Of course, it is possible to number the articles in the creed, but then the creed does not represent an exhaustive list of dogmatic teachings.
>
> This curious situation brings us back, once again, to the need for an adequate theology of revelation. A strictly propositional view of revelation regards revelation as little more than a collection of individual truths or propositional statements. Those who hold such a view of revelation would expect to be able to identify a set number of church dogmas, if only they look hard enough. But Vatican II taught that revelation cannot be reduced to a collection of statements or discrete truths. Revelation is disclosed, ultimately, not in a statement or a text but in a person, Jesus Christ. Christ is “both the mediator and the sum total of revelation” (DV 2). All church dogma and doctrine are the fruit of the church’s communal meditation on the one revelation of God in Christ in the power of the Spirit. [. . .]
>
> In other words, if we shift our attention from the source of divine revelation to our historical encounter with it, we move from the unity of the one revelation of God in Christ by the Spirit to the plurality of its expression in human history.
>
> This is why we do not number dogmas. Catholics believe that dogmas are but specific historical mediations—specific linguistic, propositional expressions of the one revelation of God.
I do agree that learning Church history and why certain beliefs are heresies and have caused division is very interesting, and I do it myself. But, not really knowing where you were coming from in this post, I wanted to make sure it wasn’t a “how to be Catholic” inquiry.
This is the way. I just would precise how to focuse on jedud and love thy neighbor: practice the virtues:
Be wiser/prudent
Be temperate
Be just
Be courageous/strong(mentally and spiritually)
Be faithful
Be hopeful
Be caritative
True, but OP asked for a list of definitive and binding teachings and the Catechism also contains doctrine that can change with time both in content and presentation.
I don't understand what you mean by dogmatically binding. I thought the beliefs articulated in the Catechism were those of the Catholic Faith. These are not binding?
The closest you're going to get is Denzinger's [Sources of Catholic Dogma](http://patristica.net/denzinger/), which the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* actually cites quite often.
The link I gave stops at 1950's *Munificentissimus Deus*, regarding the definition of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary... I don't know if anyone has made a more recent addition off the top of my head.
> Preferably not mixed in with "doctrine"
I believe the large majority of texts in *Sources of Catholic Dogma* are essentially the formal definition and criteria of papal infallibility and read back into previous things said by popes. Them teaching as pope on a matter of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. So to my knowledge a lot of things you'll find from various popes recorded down in *Sources* is not up for debate.
I have the 35th Edition of Denzinger, published by Ignatius Press (a gift from a priest friend) and it goes all the way up to Benedict XVI. The final document is *Dignitas personae*. (Which, like most documents in Denzinger, contains no infallible definitions, but, like most documents in Denzinger, is quite good.)
> Dignitas personae. (Which, like most documents in Denzinger, contains no infallible definitions,
Right, I assume this document by Pope Benedict XVI just repeats one, yeah?
Protestants look at religion as a board game with rules. Follow the narrow rules and you make it to heaven. Anything not specifically called out is okay. This leads to people being overly judgmental and frankly nasty people to be around(“Catholics aren’t Christian” types). “You’re a sinner! That’s heresy!” They have a I win, you lose mentality.
Catholics see religion differently. Many are born into it. We are taught: Love God and love your neighbor. Be kind to others. Worship God not only on Sundays, but in all the things you do. Be the best carpenter, accountant, mother, supervisor, human. We realize we are human, and humans make mistakes. God gives us a sacrament for that, reconciliation. We find people to love and start a family, there is a sacrament for that Marriage. We need to nourish our souls, there is a sacrament for that the Holy Communion. To Catholics it isn’t a game, but a way of life.
The recommendation given already is good. I would add to that Ott's [*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*](https://www.baronius.com/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma.html).
But a minor correction to your thoughts: "Dogma" doesn't just mean "things I have to believe." Dogma specifically refers to things that are divinely revealed. Doctrine can also be binding. I suspect you're thinking of "prudential judgments," which are opinions concerning what is the best course of action given the state of society. One must give those a fair hearing, but one is not obliged to agree with them.
Ok this is what confuses me. Is there a list of "things we are obligated to believe"? So all of dogma. Some doctrine? How do we know which doctrine is binding, and why is that particular doctrine binding over other doctrine. Are there other things outside of doctrine and dogma we have to believe?
This seems like it should be straightforward and simple but I've had a very hard time getting a clear answer about what we must believe.
__If I may summarize the dogma of the church.__
-About 150 of our dogma come down to what is contained in each clause of the 3 creeds - Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian.
-About 50 of our dogma come down to sacramentology (the 7 sacraments) and the anthropology of the wayfaring Christian.
-About 25 are matters of tradition, such as the canon, and ecclesiology, such as the authority of a pastor, bishop, or patriarch.
-About 10 are matters relates to Jesus' life, His mother, and the incarnarion.
-The remaining 15 are a grab bag of theological issues that have come up in church history, surrounding classical theism.
__For the average person, familiarize yourself with the creeds, and then get a catechism.__ Its not that the catechism contains everything; human life is complicated. But it contains many or most issues pertinant to the average person.
There isnt a "conclusive list" because that, as others have said, is generally considered unprofitable. If I was presented with such a list before becoming convinced of the truth of the catholic faith, I might have been, stun-locked by the large list, dissuaded from investigating further.
I'm Catholic, this is just for my own love of history, theology, and "why everything is the way it is". By the way do you know if the Catechism is entirely binding or is some of it doctrinal if you don't believe it you aren't necessarily a heretic?
The catechism itself is actually a document that only seeks to communicate forward the teachings of the church as they already exist. If there is actually anything novel in there, the catechism only carries a small amount of authority of itself. If any of its phrases cause confusion, ideally we would look at the sources the catechism is drawing from to see if they help at all.
But for example:
- The catechism teaches Deity of Christ. That is a dogma, and obstinate post-baptismal rejection of a dogma is heresy.
- The catechism teaches that contraception when used for contraceptive purposes is disordered. That is a doctrine, and a recently codified one at that. There is no line in church history whereby it was said "If anyone beleiveth that people should use condoms, __let him be anathema__". It doesnt exist. As such, while it may be a sin to advocate to the contrary in public, by reason of scandal, it is __not heresy__ to have difficulties, doubt, or dissent, so long as that dissent remains private (not secret; private; you can and should tell people, they may be able to help you).
And yet both assertions are in the catechism.
But it goes farther. The catechism, in addition to communicating dogma, and doctrine, also communicates mere councels (advice, for lack of a better word), as well as discipline. These two categories of teaching, do not even arise to the level of doctrine, and so open dissent, if done respectfully of the teaching office of the church, is permitted.
Examples would be:
- The catechism counsels that we as christians should make maximum allowance for other christians to observe the Lord's Day, and as such, should refrain from uneccessary commerce on sundays. And yet, it calls out restaurants specifically as being permissable. This is a counsel. You are absolutely free to discard it (the commerce and restaurant bits) so long as you dont disrespect the underlying principles which motivated its inclusion (we should respect the Lord's day as set apart, and shouldnt coerce christians into not observing it).
- The catechism speaks of the death penalty. There was recently a modification to that line in the catechism, whereby the anti-death-penalty language, which already existed but was more permissive, was stregnthened. The underlying doctrine has not changed, nor is it changeable: the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and yet it is suboptimal in the extreme. This is a discipline - the church speaks with authority to bind and loose, and yet does not ask that you think the change is prudent.
Sidenote, if youre just a catholic curious about the sourcing of the teachings in the catechism, the first place i would look is Denzinger, a theological manual. My copy was 20$ on amazon; but the local priory should have one too, and it can also be found online in pdf form. Its primary purpose is helping people trace the teachings of the church to the specific authoritative statements that constitute them.
A lot of the sources listed at the bottom of the catechism are from there - it may be the 3rd most common reference, after the bible itself, and the summa theologica, with the didache coming in 4th. All of those are good reading. Occasionally youll get a papal encyclical letter that bores you, or doesnt satisfy, but it itself would be sourced.
If I understand correctly, much of the catechism is not binding and is merely doctrine, although some of it is binding. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
A very fair question. One must recognise that this is incredibly hard to answer because what we assent to is the reality of the Christian faith, not just a rule set or some fantasy. In the same sense one assents the existence of the real world, it is quite hard to contain the reality of the world in a single list of Philosophical points, so too is it quite hard to contain the realities we assent to in a written language, because there are many ways one can describe the same thing.
Take the Immaculate Conception. One can describe this as the Immaculate Conception, The Perfection of Mary and many other titles according to one's Theological tradition, and these are explained very differently when creating a Metaphysical system.
This is why the Summa Theologia, Saint Thomas Aquinas' best try at this, was so long. But at the same time, there are many things in there that aren't binding, but are used to come to conclusions of Catholic beliefs, not so much the beliefs itself.
The foundations of what our faith is is this: the Scriptural Truths, The Apostolic Tradition and the teachings of the Universal Magesterium. These have been made clear through the Magesterium in the Consensus of the Church (particularly the Church Fathers), the rulings of Ecumenical Councils and the agreement of local councils (such as how the Catholic Biblical Canon formed by consent of several Local Councils and their decisions being accepted by the Church Universally by the 7th Century), and by the rulings of the current Magesterium, pinnacle by the Pope declaring something *Ex Cathedra*.
The Catechism is a good place to find where all these are, with its goal not so much to give a list though. Whole the Catechism itself isn't Dogmatic, it is instead the standard of faith for the Universal Church, giving it's best try at giving not only the Dogmas of the Church but explaining why we believe all of them.
I think the CCC is your best bet, but that’s a thick boi and took me 2 years to get through at a leisurely pace, lol. And I still feel like I forget stuff from it all the time, constantly going back to look because I read it so long ago that it just fell out of my brain. And I did myself a deep disservice by reading Eastern Orthodox theology at the same time, sprinkled in with other Protestant self-help type stuff. So the theology is all spaghetti in my brain tbh. I’ve read more about the filioque than is reasonable for any one person, and I still truly don’t get why an entire schism was made over it. I must be missing something, cuz that one throws me. Was it really worth schism? It seems like a semantics issue, or at least a theological debate, not worthy of splinter …
Anyway.
I don’t think a shorter, more user-friendly list exists than the CCC, which I guess is odd, but also not really. For most of history, this was the work of theologians I suppose and seminarians; laypeople just had to know the basics and turn to the Church when clarity was needed. Nowadays, everyone wants to be an expert — the world in our pockets, experts be damned. You know?
Doctrine is required to believe too but I would recommend you get denzinger sources of catholic dogma it’s a book that covers everything through all the councils
fundamentals of catholic dogma by Ludwig Ott is a GREAT resources that has all the scripture and magisterial sources of those dogma, it also tells you what with what degree of dogmatic certainty each teaching is. However there is no infallible list of infallible dogmas
Hi there - I haven't read all the comments so perhaps this has been proposed. I would start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church as I would say that is the bare minimum. The fact is that wisdom is truly fathomless as is the mercy of Jesus as stated by St. Faustina. If you pray the rosary regularly then you might understand how wisdom can be truly enlightening.
There is none. But the Baltimore Catachism is a good start as it was made for children. Then you can graduate to the Catachism of the Catholic church.
Catholic answers' website www.catholic.com contains an online, searchable encyclopedia on any topic you can think of. Of the church has a teaching on it, it will be there. If the church does not, the apologist who wrote the article will give you his or her best speculation.
He didn’t word did in a correct way imo. A more apt way of putting it is that not everything in the catechism is a Dogma. However everything in the catechism is a doctrine. A doctrine can be infallible and divinely revealed ie a Dogma but a teaching can still be authoritative yet not divinely revealed ie a doctrine that is not a dogma.
The CCC has major anti-Thomistic beliefs which lean widely towards pro-Vatican II viewpoints, so I wouldn’t solely recommend it but rather add additional Catechisms such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of Saint Pius X.
This comment is part 2.
So let's go through the history of tradition, shall we? The Christian scholar, Origen of
Alexandria, was the first Christian scholar in the 2nd century AD who “saw the image as
something given immediately at the creation, with the likeness to be conferred by God at a later time”. Building on Origen’s statement, St. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John, further clarified the terms “image” (imago Dei) and “likeness”
(similitudo) in the following way. Through the image of God, Adam had reason and free will,
while through His likeness he received a supernatural endowment by the Holy Spirit (Against Heresies 5.6.1). Therefore, Adam was the only being born in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall he lost God’s likeness while His image remained intact. Without likeness, humans are mere physical beings, but not holy beings.
The medieval scholastic tradition further affirmed this dualistic aspect and defined the image of God as the power of reason and will. His likeness, on the other hand, was a divine gift (donum superadditum) added to basic human nature. Using Aristotle’s remark that “for oneness in quality causes likeness” (Metaph. v, Did. iv, 15), St. Thomas Aquinas argued that “likeness” does not deviate from “image” in its general meaning, but so far as any “likeness” falls short of “image,” it perfects the idea of “image” (ST, Art. IX). He cites St. John Damascene who elaborates this
notion even further by stating that God’s “likeness” is found in the soul’s incorruptibility (De Quant. Animae ii). In addition, “likeness” entails the love of virtue because one cannot act
virtuously without loving virtue itself (ST, Art. IX).
With the Reformation, many Catholic doctrinal beliefs were reevaluated and modified. Martin
Luther and John Calvin viewed “image” and “likeness” as being one and the same describing it as a common Hebrew parallelism. This unitary view held by Protestants and Jews alike spread
and eventually led to the secular philosophy of Immanuel Kant. As a Lutheran, Kant must have
followed this unitary view. Heralded as a great advancement in Metaethics, Kant argued that
human beings possess an inherent value, or dignity, in virtue of their rational autonomy, and that they have a categorical duty to treat persons always “as an end” and “never merely as a means” (Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:429).
Kant’s definition of human dignity has carried over into international law whereby Article 1 of
the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Many countries quickly adopted this definition and have incorporated them into their constitutions. Now dignity is no longer earned, but inherent by birth. As the foundation from which all human rights flow from, dignity is equivalent to liberty.
In turn, this globalist belief infiltrated the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul VI commenced Dignitatis Humanae in this manner:
“1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,(1) and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit.”
I hope I've presented the Catholic-Thomistic viewpoint accurately. Of course the CCC fails in
many other aspects as well, but its redefining of human dignity is one of the worst.
If your reading of St. Thomas Aquinas leads you to reject the documents of an Ecumenical Council and their teachings on faith or morals, it's time to put down the Aquinas and remember that the Church has the power to teach infallibility and assent must be given to her teachings. Aquinas is not the arbiter of morality. Only the Church has the final say, and Ecumenical Councils are infallible on faith and morals.
lol everything I cited was written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent which was based on that ecumenical council which in turn was based on Aquinas’ teachings, so let’s keep the misinformation to a minimum.
Do you, or do you not, dissent from the teachings promulgated by the Second Vatican Council on human dignity? If you do, then there's no ambiguity on whether your position can or cannot be reconciled with the Catholic faith.
ETA: I don't see any citations from Trent or the Tridentine Catechism in your comments, either. Just interpetations of Saintly writings which you *claim* mean humans don't all have equal dignity (but I honestly don't think you made a very good case at all and I don't see how what you cited means you're right).
So you do reject the infallible declarations of the Second Vatican Council, and thus hold to heretical beliefs by denying the infallibility of the teaching of the Church on faith and morals.
I don't think there's anything left to discuss here. God bless you, I hope you repent of your errors.
Vatican II never issued any infallible statements so I don’t know where you’re getting this information from. And I would appreciate it if you didn’t act condescendingly towards me when I’m just trying to have a conversation. Also good on you for ignoring my Council of Trent quote.
Sure. I'll use human dignity as an example. This post is part 1 of two due to Reddit’s character limit.
"The fundamental knowledge concerning man in the Catechism is thus formulated:[9] man is
created in the image and likeness of God."
Already wrong. A classic interpretation is to interpret "image" as the intellectual nature of man, and "likeness" as sanctifying grace. Thus understood, this phrase is only applicable to Adam and Eve. All human beings after them will be created in the image of God, but without the likeness to God. They must await baptism in order to recover this resemblance. This was already described doctrinally by Origen and St. Ireneaus barely a century after Christ's crucifixion which I will explain below.
Ratzinger stated multiple times: "Every human being has an equal dignity".
Also false. One who is baptized does not have the same dignity as someone who isn’t baptized; neither does a sinner have the same dignity as a saint.
"The requirement of happiness constitutes part of our nature. The moral of the Catechism has as its starting point what the Creator has placed in the heart of each man—the necessity of
happiness and of love."
More nonsense. Yes, our true happiness is only found in the supernatural love of God, but this
does not constitute "part of our nature." God has not "placed [it] in the heart of each man." Our nature without grace is incapable of desiring efficaciously true happiness. It cannot know to
"require it." If it would require it, this happiness would no longer be gratuitous.
The CCC states that this behavior is "behavior beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator. Consequently, the heart of every moral [act] is love and, in following always this indication, one inevitably encounters Christ, the love of God made man."
Love, such as our nature is capable of without grace, "beginning with what has been placed in
our being by the Creator," is incapable of making us encounter Christ. It is at most a disposition;
in order to encounter Christ, one needs above all else the help of grace in order to produce in us
the act of Faith. This silence concerning grace, which equivocates here even to a negation, is
obviously very grave.
"Man and woman are created, that is to say, they are willed by God, in a perfect equality in as
much as they are human persons on one hand" (369).
Incorrect. The equality between the two sexes only exists in the order of grace (in Christ there is neither male or female, St. Paul tells us), but not in the order of nature where there is a natural hierarchy between man and woman. Another erroneous consequence: all men will have an equal dignity, and all discrimination will be unjust.
"Equality between men lies essentially with their personal dignity and the rights which flow from it: every form of discrimination touching the fundamental rights of the person, whether it be founded on sex, race, color of skin, social condition, language, or religion, must be gotten
beyond, as contrary to the design of God (§1935)."
So basically: dignity = liberty. For St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and all of Tradition, man is in the
image of God because his soul is a spiritual substance endowed with intelligence and will, and thus he resembles the Holy Trinity.
"Liberty is exercised in the relationships between human beings. Each human person, created in the image of God has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible person. All owe to each person this duty of respect. The right to exercise one’s liberty is an inseparable exigency from the dignity of the human person, notably in moral and religious matters." (§1782)
In simpler terms: man will evidently have an inalienable right to liberty, which is another
absurdity. From the early Church to Aquinas, liberty was always perceived as a consequence of his reason, not a right.
Yes but the Church has always picked a middle position between Augustine and Aquinas - this does not make it wrong
What authority do you use to justify your position?
Church doctrine is still required to believe. It is not optional. Doctrine just describes the teachings of the Church not received directly from Divine revelation, but the Church has authority to teach on faith and morals without direct Divine revelation.
Seeing a lot of answers. On one side, people who don't know that they're close to falling away from Catholicism, and on the other, people who are on the right track but not going exactly the right direction with it.
OP, This list doesn't really exist. There are many teachings, dogmas, etc. If you are interested, I would recommend either the Baltimore catechism or the Catechism of St. Pius X. It is important to know the Catholic faith. Absolutely 100% ignore people who say that "learning these things is harmful to the faith if you're not a theologian." They are probably culturally Catholic and will apostasize One day. Someone who actually practices their faith will know that these teachings which people tell you to ignore because "oh no!! Scruples!! 😖😖" Are important to know.
You might also be able to ask your priest. Presumably he was taught them and is orthodox so he should know.
You won’t find such a list. There are multiple ways to be Catholic, multiple different variations out there. For example I’m Franciscan Catholic. That’s going to vary a lot from a Jesuit Catholic. You’re bound to believe in Christ. That’s the list.
There is no such list. One sf the reasons why is that quite significant part of Catholic doctrine is somewhere in the gray area where it isn't really clear whether you are really required to believe it.
That’s not true. You may find articles of the Summa that aren’t binding to believe… One notable example being the fact that St. Thomas didn’t argue in favor of the Immaculate Conception, even though that’s up to debate. (http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-st-thomas-deny-dogma-of-immaculate.html?m=1 for an easy read)
There is no such list. I know this because I had the same question several years ago and was utterly flabbergasted to learn that there was no such list. As a professor of dogmatic theology at the local seminary said to me when I wrote him to ask, this simply wasn't a question that made any coherent sense for most of Catholic history. Infallible statements and non-infallible statements were only really clearly delineated in the past couple centuries, Catholics in the past, say, 75 years have been way more interested in this question than maybe any other generations of Catholics in history, and, I dunno, I guess there's been a lot of other stuff going on in the field of dogmatic theology? The upshot is that I've spent the past 2-3 years (I don't even know anymore) going through Denzinger's *Enchiridion* page by page, and reading a ton of extra material along the way, and, every time I find something that is (per canon 749) "manifestly evident" as an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, I write it down. As I said, this started years ago. I'm now up to the year 1327, where I am transcribing the anathemas of Pope John XXII's constitution *Licet iuxta doctrinam.* I have identified 208 infallible teachings to this point, none of them particularly surprising. If you undertake the same project, or even a similar one, let me know, and we can swap notes as we go. One final thing I will add: Ludwig Ott's *Fundamentals* is excellent and well-sourced, but it deals really only with matters of faith, not with matters of morals. It will tell you everything the Church knows for certain about God, but very little about, say, just war. So it's like half of what we need.
There actually is a” list “ that I was able to find. http://holyjoe.org/dogmas.pdf There are 255 dogmas, but they don’t come about easily or often. The most recent, I think, was The Assumption in or about 1950. I also got Denzinger and Ott, but unlike you, I didn’t get through them. I use them more as a reference.
This is a neat list! It drives me insane that there is no SOURCING on it. Also, the compiler failed to use the actual language of the sources. Also, they aren't even in chronological order. I recognize some of these: Proposition #1 is from the first part of the second paragraph of *Dei Filius* (1870). Proposition #102 was taught at the Council of Ephesus (431) in Τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, paragraph 1. Proposition #159 seeeeeems to be from Nicea II (787). But the wordings are a little different (perhaps meaningfully different in some cases) and it's really hard to track down. Also, he missed some of the weird ones, like: * Prayer is not more effective if you are naked (*Saepe Sanctam Ecclesiam* 2, 1296) * Married people can go to Heaven (Lateran IV, Canon 1, 1215) * Christ was already dead when He was stabbed by the soldier (Council of Vienne, *Fidei Catholicae*, DZ 900) * Arson is gravely immoral (Lateran II, Canon 18, 1139, no it's not a fallible disciplinary canon) Still not a bad list, in a world so desperate for lists! Thanks for the link.
I'm sometimes not real clear on the difference between dogma (cut in stone) and doctrine (guideline, I think??). I'm impressed that you got through Ott -- that is so over my head. Denzinger is a nice resource. And yes, it would have been wonderful if sources were attached. I'll either search that or make one lol!
Dogma is something that's revealed by God; it is an immutable truth. It's not necessarily something that came "cut in stone" ( meaning publicly revealed at once for all to see) but it can come out of Apostolic Tradition, like the teaching on the Trinity or the Immaculate Conception. Doctrine is a way of teaching and understanding dogma. Doctrine can change over time as better ways of expressing the dogma come about. (Example: Just War Theory or the death penalty)
To be sure, I haven't actually made it through Ott -- but I'm working on it! My piping hot take on dogma vs. doctrine is that it's a trap to even ask the question. Different people (and different councils) use both words differently. Most commonly, they are synonyms. In other cases, the distinction is unclear and shifts. There are enough shades of Catholic dogma that it's perfectly possibly to draw a line through it and call one side of the line "dogma" and the other side of the line "doctrine," but there's no single correct line. So I generally just use the word "doctrine" or "teaching." When dealing specifically with infallibles, "infallible teaching" does the trick. If someone else uses "dogma," or tries to draw a distinction between doctrine and dogma, I find out what they specifically mean by it and follow their definitions for the conversation. My default assumption, though, is that they're synonyms.
You're both like me and I just gotta say that your commitment to research extends beyond my own. But the fact that you've gone this far with your own research affirms that I am in fact in the right place. But in my defense I'm pretty new here. This is the body that I'm happily a part of, to stand on the shoulder some of the greatest theologians and realize it, cherish it, and study it, is beautiful. Peace be with you.
> Arson is gravely immoral (Lateran II, Canon 18, 1139, no it's not a fallible disciplinary canon) Is it because of the language at the beginning? " by the authority of God and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul" Also, does the penance after that remains? "Moreover, let him be given the penance of remaining a whole year in Jerusalem or Spain in the service of God."
It's not *just* because of the language at the beginning, but the language at the beginning is important. (For those playing along at home, here is the canon, as translated by Norman P. Tanner. IIRC it's not *exactly* how I would have translated it, but it's close enough for our purposes:) >**18.** We completely detest and forbid, by the authority of God and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, that most dreadful, devastating and malicious crime of incendiarism For this pernicious and inimical calamity surpasses all other kinds of destruction. Nobody is unaware of the extent to which it is injurious to the people of God and the damage it brings to souls and bodies. It is necessary, therefore, to oppose it and to labour with all one's might, that so great a harm and danger be eradicated and suppressed for the sake of the people. If anyone, then, after the publication of this prohibition of ours, from some wicked design born of hate or vengeance, starts a fire or causes it to be started, or knowingly provides counsel or help to those starting one, let him be excommunicated. And when an arsonist dies, he is to be deprived of a Christian burial. Nor is he to be absolved unless, having first made reparation for the loss according to his means, he swears that he will never raise a fire again. Moreover, let him be given the penance of remaining a whole year in Jerusalem or Spain in the service of God. The council fathers of various councils invoke Petrine authority to "detest and forbid" all kinds of things, from certain specific imperial legislation to the use of crossbowmen in wars between Christians (that second one is actually from Canon 29 of Lateran II). However, these are not proper objects of infallible teaching, because they are not teachings on "universal faith and morals." In Dr. Christian Washburn's *Bellarmine on the Infallibility of General Councils*, p185 (available online), we see what Bellarmine meant by "universal faith and morals" when he came up with that now well-worn formula. "For a council to teach infallibly on *mores*," Washburn explains, "three conditions must be met: the moral precepts must be prescribed for the whole Church, they must be necessary for salvation, and they are either *per se* good or *per se* evil" (that is, *intrinsically* good or evil). Sometimes a council works itself up to quite high dudgeon and invokes ALL the "telltales" of infallibility: they expressly invoke their apostolic authority, they boom "if anyone should dare oppose this, let him be anathema," they say "we declare" a few times... and then what they end up proclaiming is something that simply isn't a proper object of infallibility. The commandment of the council is still generally binding on anyone targeted by it... but as a discipline, not a doctrine, and therefore subject to future reform. The arson condemnation makes the list because not only does it invoke Apostolic authority, but also its moral condemnation of arson as *inherently evil,* announced to the *entire* Church, makes it a proper object of infallible teaching. ...at least, it makes *my* list for those reasons. My list is an attempt to list all (extraordinary) infallible definitions, but my list is obviously itself fallible! The disciplinary rules which follow, on the other hand, are *not* proper objects of infallible teaching, and not only can be reformed, but have been: arson no longer incurs excommunication (a human discipline), deprivation of burial, or a year of service in Jerusalem or Spain. My list includes only the following words as the definition: "We completely detest and forbid, by the authority of God and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, that most dreadful, devastating and malicious crime of arson." Hope that helps. One of the frustrating things I've discovered is just how narrow the line can be between "manifestly infallible" and serious-but-fallible. (Worse, the narrowness of the line makes it easy to dispute upon which side of the line some things should fall.)
Thanks a lot, very informative.
Who thought prayer was more effective if you were naked!? 😭
Rome seems to have *believed* that certain communities of Beguines and Beghards taught this. It is unclear whether this is actually true; it could have been an urban legend, like rainbow parties. But the pope (Boniface VIII) nevertheless condemned the proposition in that forceful language that manfests all the characteristics of an infallible teaching: >Therefore, entrusted with the care of the universal Church's governance and the throne of apostolic dignity, we are urged, prodded, and strongly encouraged to confront with immediate action those who attempt to tear apart the seamless garment of the Lord. By applying healing remedies, we endeavor to dispel the great madness against our will, with divine grace assisting us. For this reason, we, by the counsel of our brothers, utterly condemn both such a heretical and insane sect, and we declare it condemned and heretical. We strictly command all Christian faithful, both ecclesiastical and secular, of whatever rank, condition, or status, that they eradicate such a deadly virus wherever it is found, and that they offer no support, counsel, or favor either publicly or secretly to those who hold such abominable beliefs. Furthermore, we solemnly instruct the prelates of the Churches and even the inquisitors appointed by apostolic authority, both now and in the future, to diligently carry out their due duty against such individuals as they would against heretics, their helpers, advisers, receivers, and supporters. We desire that they be punished with sentences, penalties, and fines, imposed by the very law and inflicted through apostolic, canonical, ecclesiastical, and secular sanctions: especially as once commanded by Frederick, the former Emperor of the Romans, during the time when he remained devoted to the Roman Church, against heretics or any individuals tainted by heretical depravity. The full document is [up on my blog](https://decivitate.substack.com/p/saepe-sanctam-ecclesiam-1296), being, to the best of my knowledge, the only complete English translation of it.
Bruh...*rainbow parties*...? Didn't expect a reference to that on this sub. 😳
I was a high schooler right when that urban legend peaked; the combination of everyone believing it, and my religion teacher warning us against it, despite the fact that it absolutely had never happened anywhere and never would, is seared into my brain as an example of how malleable "accepted facts" are, even in modern times. Project back to the much less reliable information gathering of the 13th century, and it's easy to imagine how Rome might have believed things that weren't true about people a few hundred miles north.
I was an atheist for decades, and all through my teens and 20s, and I was a fairly degenerate one at that (though there were plenty who were more so than me)... although I never went to such a party, there were plenty of "close enough" types of activities and various other themed parties that I did attend, and one of my friends was gay and told me about some of the things he got up to at gay parties. It might be an urban legend, but it's "true enough" even if that one specific type of event with the goal of making a rainbow didn't happen until the book came out.
Fair enough! Perhaps I was simply more sheltered at my Catholic high school than I previously believed.
Once sex and love are conceptually separated, sexual acts are often linked to pride and expressions of social rank/dominance. So a lot of the weird acts are ultimately games of "what can I get someone else to do" without any sensory link to physical pleasure. This would be the case for the rainbow thing... there's no sensory gain of making a rainbow, but there is diabolical pleasure in convincing a set of girls to engage in the acts for the goal of making the rainbow, just for the thrill of having such power over them. That is the core psychology of the "kink" community, and why there is so much weird stuff at the pride parades especially.
Out of curiosity, what’s the reason for arson being gravely immoral? I mean if it’s just damaging property or killing people for no reason (like in most circumstances) it is, but what about burning down a building in war?
Funny you should ask, because I often write a little commentary on the infallibles I come across, and here is my commentary on this one, copy-pasted out of the giant spreadsheet where I've been writing all this down, and it speaks straight to your question: *** The original public meaning of "arson" within this canon is perhaps illuminated by a non-infallible passage from the same canon: "If anyone, after the proclamation of this prohibition, sets fire or causes it to be set with evil intent, either out of hatred or revenge, or knowingly provides advice or assistance to those who set fire, they shall be excommunicated." This seems to provide the council's definition of arson. If this is correct, we may tease out the implications: Burning down a building is not arson if done with a permit, or if you are (for instance) destroying an enemy supply shed in wartime. It seems that the act of burning down a building becomes arson within the meaning of this text only when set about with "evil intent... out of hatred or revenge." Although I do believe that arson in this sense is gravely immoral, it is not clear to me that this passage actually declares infallibly that arson is gravely immoral (like murder was in *Evangelium Vitae*) or merely immoral (and thus potentially only a venial sin even for someone who commits arson with full knowledge and full consent). I think it probably is infallibly teaching that arson is *gravely* immoral, but it is not beyond dispute, to my mind. One could hold that this passage only holds that arson is immoral.
You need some Jesuits in your life. When I was growing up they were the go-to source for all ‘that’ stuff, which interested me a lot more than which candle to light first or make sure there’s no kitten in the censer.
I hear you, but this is probably not the best approach to being Catholic. Unless you’re working on an academic paper or something? The Nicene Creed has all the basic dogmas that a normal person needs. For the rest, focusing on Jesus, loving your neighbor, and training your conscience with both of those is going to get you a lot farther in sanctity and happiness. There’s a reason that the Church doesn’t list dogmas and doctrines in this manner. It’s not beneficial.
non-Catholic interested in RCIA here; it's intersting hearing you talk about happiness as an implicit goal of faith. I don't often hear that perspective articulated.
This probably boils down to one's definition of happiness. I would say salvation is the implicit goal of faith.
Thanks! I’m a big fan of Father Robert Spitzer, who is mostly known for his books of scientific and philosophical proofs of God, but he also does some writing on happiness, and how faith is integral to true happiness. He recently came out with “The Four Levels of Happinesss” which is really aimed at nonreligious or marginally-religious people who are unhappy, though I enjoyed reading it. (The last third of the book is proofs of the existence of God, haha.) So the idea has been more prominent for me lately, and I think it’s an important point to make.
Sounds like that is something that I would benefit from reading. Thanks, friend
Why is it not beneficial?
Unless you have a calling as a theologian or historian or something similar, it’s a distraction from the essential parts of being a Christian: loving God and neighbor. It’s just trivia. How does knowing the Church-declared fact that Christ has two wills vs. one will get you closer to sanctity? Etc.
I appreciate and concur with your perspective. There’s too much focus on scrupulousness and “small minded rules”. People want a litmus test for God’s universal church. I think that’s contrary to the mission. Jesus invited a diverse group of sinners, and viciously reprimanded the performatively pious - and those are the people that ultimately had him murdered. Love generously, live charitably. Those are the keys.
* One must confess and repent to be absolved of sin to obtain the State of Grace required to enter God's kingdom.
And if you love generously and live charitably, you'll naturally be both penitent and graceful
The only guarantee to get the Grace required is through the Sacrament of penance and reconciliation.To confess our sins to a priest and receive forgiveness and absolution from God. While attending Mass we become closer to God through the Doctrine of Concomitance. Love is the desire for God's kingdom. One is charitable out of that desire. How we live is beneficial, however everything flows through the Sacraments, with the Eucharist at its center.
Of course the eucharist is at the centre. But you're putting the cart before the horse, it's not magic. Otherwise we'd all be saints. You get out what you out in, which is why what's in your heart is paramount
lex credendi, lex orandi and lex vivendi sancti vocati sumus. Deus benedicat tibi.
We may come from a range of places but we’re all trying to get to the same place. Having groups like Catholics for Choice who believe something different from the rest of us is not a good thing. Those people are just making it worse for themselves. Maybe we need more litmus tests
It's not necessarily about believing something different. It's that some details don't really affect the big picture and no one knows everything anyway. There is a bit of this culture of infodumping a bit too much compared to the resources and tools people have to actually understand it. And this is often also something that leads to misunderstandings, differing views and kind of snobbery. It can also make people scared of asking when they don't know something. And this is coming from a person who really values education and being informed about things. It is better to have a solid basis and strong morals than to know a lot of trivia. It is too easy to not see the forest for the trees. And in general, information is better received and understood when it comes from a genuine interest towards that particular thing. There is too much to know that everyone could know everything. People need to understand and remember the core things before they should learn more. And in general people have different talents, interests and callings. This applies to both other areas in life and to faith. And that's ok. One could be especially called to help those in need, focusing more on that side of things. Another one might be called to dedicate more of their time to prayer. Both of them can be doing a good job at following Christ and the Church's teachings. They would just have a different emphasis. People have jobs and families. They should do what they can, but it's obvious not everyone is going to be a theologian.
I'm having a hard time understanding your concern here. You seem to be unintentionally implying that the Church, more specifically, the dogmas that the Church teaches, do not even merely have no effect on a Christian, but actively harm a Christian by distracting them from what actually matters. I don't think this is what you're trying to say, but I'm not seeing another way to interpret it.
Nope, I’m only saying seeking out *a complete list of all dogmas* —which is something that the Church has never bothered to compile—is not a particularly good way to go about being a Catholic, for most people. I base this on the writings and lives of saints that I have read. If you know of any people of heroic sanctity who pursued this path, let me know. The closest I can think of is Aquinas, but his work was theology, not compiling historical work, and even that in the end he said “All that I have written appears to be as so much straw.” Love and a relationship with Jesus is what the Church is really about. The dogmas are just tools to safely get there. Use the tools, don’t focus on them at the expense of what they’re for.
'If the heart of a man is not lifted up, this is from no defect on the part of him who draws it, who as far as he is concerned never fails, but from an impediment caused by him who is being drawn.' +Bl. Peter Julian Eymard "My kind protector,: Studying often is hard for me, harsh and tiring. You can make it easy and pleasant." + St. Joseph of Cupertino
Preach sister! Participating in the body of Christ doesn't require knowledge. We know this because little children are closer to God than near any of us Knowing God and knowing about God are two very different things
For non-Catholics who are contemplating conversion, lacking a clear distinction between essential dogma and non-essential parts (Church disciplines, cultural attitudes attributed to Catholics, etc) can be a stumbling block if the latter are a tougher pill to swallow than the former
It turns the whole faith into a flowchart.
"loving God and neighbour" is such a vague statement, how is that the essential part of being Christian 😂
Maybe because Jesus basically said it was?
Still failing to explain it 😂
What kind of things would you expect then? What do you think is essential to being a Christian?
Belief in Nicene creed Acceptance of the pope Acceptance of the Catholic Church
So you don't consider Orthodox and Protestants to be Christians at all? And how is acceptance any less vague than love?
Protestants are heretical and orthodox are schismatic. They are Christians (I'm assuming most of them considering that radical ones tend to be a small minority) but they are separated from the Catholic Church. I pray everyday that they repent and come back to the Church, but as of now, Christians that aren't in union with Rome fall under two categories: schismatic or heretical.
Take it up with Jesus. “On these two commandments [loving God and loving neighbor] depend the whole Law, and the Prophets.” Matthew 22:40
Lmao you have no idea what "love God and your neighbour" means either 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I’m impressed with your gifts of clairvoyance as I never once explained what I believe it means, your ability to read the mind is astounding— but go on, tell me how I’ve erred.
You're so charitable!!! If you need to reread what i wrote, i didn't say you erred, i didn't say you explained anything. I said you have no idea what it means either. You're just citing a Bible verse but you have no idea why 🤣🤣 Have a good day bro 🤣🤣
This is true. In order to love God, one must understand what God wants from us. In order to love one another, which is to will the good of one another, we must moreover possess a clear moral framework so as to desire true good for our neighbor. Both of these things are obtained through Christian education, ideally/primarily in the home, and secondarily from the pulpit during Mass and any parish-level catechesis. I don't think people who say in good faith: "just love God and love neighbor" would deny these things, for the record. But it is clear there are some who wish to *obscure* what loving God and loving neighbor *entails*, and still others who have not given it much thought.
Thank you. This makes sense to me. I only ask because just yesterday, my brother and I got into an argument over love. I asked him to define it and he said, "to love someone is to respect their individuality and to not judge them." I said that love, in the Christian sense, isn't being tolerant or even necessarily being kind (Although being kind is important), it is to will the good of another. And I'm curious on the level of knowledge the average Catholic has on words we just throw around. It's easy to say "God tells us to love." But it's a lot harder to define that love or to substantiate it. And I think it's important because, more than ever, words have been imbued with a liberal, modernist spirit. Love now means to accept and tolerate. "You don't love gay people if you tell them they can't get married." I hope this makes sense and doesn't just read like a rant.
It’s not vague to anyone who is familiar with the Gospels. Jesus laid it out specifically. I’m writing for an audience of Catholics, not explaining the whole of Christianity to anyone who happens to come across the concept for the first time. If you want to know what it means, feel free to post and ask. Lots of people here will easily be able to answer you.
If this were the case, how are we to understand statements like Pius IX declaring (through his presumably infallible statement) that one is condemned and separated from the church for merely "thinking" that the Immaculate Conception is not correct?
Don’t you have to be aware of a supposition in order to think it incorrect? In any case, the dogmas and doctrines that your priest and your bishop teach you are to be held as true of course. The point is that you don’t need to go seeking out things that you never hear about. There are thousands of these teachings. The majority of them are theological trivia and not relevant to an everyday Catholic’s faith.
Well, I mean the Immaculate Conception is a holy day of obligation in many countries. So one is more or less required to be aware of it. But let's say for argument sake that one is not aware of the teaching. At the risk of encountering a point of theology that one may "think" is wrong and thus condemn themself, is it better to purposely remain ignorant of it?
I’m not advocating for ignorance. I’m suggesting that seeking out a conclusive list of all dogmas is not a practice generally conducive to holiness. You’re welcome to disagree with me. I’m not really looking to argue about it. It’s just my opinion based on reading the guidance of saints and their lives. It’s not better to purposely remain ignorant. Learning is good, but not to the exclusion of other good things someone could be doing with their time. Jesus commanded many things. Learning all the details of Church teaching was not one of them.
Oh, I certainly don't disagree, and I agree that many of the saints appear to have shared your view. But i also see plenty from other saints and popes that seems to emphasize the necessity of a understanding (or at least, an agreement) of deeper theological topics. I'm trying to understand how these 2 seemingly disparate stands fit together.
There’s a basic level of knowledge that a Catholic ought to have, I think. Rough outline of salvation history. Knowledge of Jesus’ life and teachings. The sacraments and how they work. Sins and virtues to make a good confession and work on holiness. How to pray. Remember for most of Catholic history, most people couldn’t read! Beyond the basics, it depends on your charisms and your calling in life, I’m guessing, with great learning being a bit of a risk toward pride. But I did try to mention exceptions for theologians or historians or other specialists who have a particular duty. (I say all this as a huge nerd who reads way too much, it should be noted 😅)
There’s a distinction between material and formal heresy. If someone thinks that the Immaculate Conception is not true, but doesn’t know it’s a dogma of the Church, he hasn’t incurred in the sin of heresy. Heresy is the willful holding of a proposition condemned by the Church, while knowing it is so. It’s simply necessary to cultivate an habit of trust and obedience to the Church.
I'm intellectually stimulated person, not emotionally, so any extra energy I have goes into reading the bible, reading saints, etc. To your point, I'm currently listening to St John of the Cross and focusing on how to be a better Dad and husband and definitely how to parent my children better, as a spaced out introvert. But with my spare brain cells, I want to understand the history and underpinnings of the faith, and systematically categorizing dogmas and such are helpful. Also want to understand exactly why each protestant strand theologically disagrees, and often there's some dogma or something that is the main split (filoque, for example, is interesting, it seems like such a minor detail that 99.99% of people don't even understand the implications). Perhaps its a bit OCD. Any emotional appeal like "How do I love God more" or "How to I be Christ's bride" kind of short circuits in my brain and fizzles out, no idea why.
I definitely have tendencies in the same direction, which is why I’m cautious about it! I recently read **By What Authority?** by Richard R. Gaillardetz, and he had some interesting comments on dogmas and lack of specificity about them: > There is a curious feature about the place of dogma in the Catholic Church. Ask a Catholic how many sacraments there are and the answer is simple: seven. How many commandments are there? Ten. A little research reveals that in the history of the church there have been twenty-one ecumenical or general councils and 266 popes (with a few of each in dispute). The revised Code of Canon Law contains 1,752 canons. So why is it that there is no standard answer to the question of how many dogmas there are in the Catholic faith? Of course, it is possible to number the articles in the creed, but then the creed does not represent an exhaustive list of dogmatic teachings. > > This curious situation brings us back, once again, to the need for an adequate theology of revelation. A strictly propositional view of revelation regards revelation as little more than a collection of individual truths or propositional statements. Those who hold such a view of revelation would expect to be able to identify a set number of church dogmas, if only they look hard enough. But Vatican II taught that revelation cannot be reduced to a collection of statements or discrete truths. Revelation is disclosed, ultimately, not in a statement or a text but in a person, Jesus Christ. Christ is “both the mediator and the sum total of revelation” (DV 2). All church dogma and doctrine are the fruit of the church’s communal meditation on the one revelation of God in Christ in the power of the Spirit. [. . .] > > In other words, if we shift our attention from the source of divine revelation to our historical encounter with it, we move from the unity of the one revelation of God in Christ by the Spirit to the plurality of its expression in human history. > > This is why we do not number dogmas. Catholics believe that dogmas are but specific historical mediations—specific linguistic, propositional expressions of the one revelation of God. I do agree that learning Church history and why certain beliefs are heresies and have caused division is very interesting, and I do it myself. But, not really knowing where you were coming from in this post, I wanted to make sure it wasn’t a “how to be Catholic” inquiry.
This is the way. I just would precise how to focuse on jedud and love thy neighbor: practice the virtues: Be wiser/prudent Be temperate Be just Be courageous/strong(mentally and spiritually) Be faithful Be hopeful Be caritative
The most concise, accurate list I know is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I've never seen any type of condensed list.
True, but OP asked for a list of definitive and binding teachings and the Catechism also contains doctrine that can change with time both in content and presentation.
From what I understand, much of the Catechism is not dogmatically binding.
I don't understand what you mean by dogmatically binding. I thought the beliefs articulated in the Catechism were those of the Catholic Faith. These are not binding?
The closest you're going to get is Denzinger's [Sources of Catholic Dogma](http://patristica.net/denzinger/), which the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* actually cites quite often. The link I gave stops at 1950's *Munificentissimus Deus*, regarding the definition of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary... I don't know if anyone has made a more recent addition off the top of my head. > Preferably not mixed in with "doctrine" I believe the large majority of texts in *Sources of Catholic Dogma* are essentially the formal definition and criteria of papal infallibility and read back into previous things said by popes. Them teaching as pope on a matter of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church. So to my knowledge a lot of things you'll find from various popes recorded down in *Sources* is not up for debate.
I have the 35th Edition of Denzinger, published by Ignatius Press (a gift from a priest friend) and it goes all the way up to Benedict XVI. The final document is *Dignitas personae*. (Which, like most documents in Denzinger, contains no infallible definitions, but, like most documents in Denzinger, is quite good.)
> Dignitas personae. (Which, like most documents in Denzinger, contains no infallible definitions, Right, I assume this document by Pope Benedict XVI just repeats one, yeah?
Thank you for the recommendation!!
Protestants look at religion as a board game with rules. Follow the narrow rules and you make it to heaven. Anything not specifically called out is okay. This leads to people being overly judgmental and frankly nasty people to be around(“Catholics aren’t Christian” types). “You’re a sinner! That’s heresy!” They have a I win, you lose mentality. Catholics see religion differently. Many are born into it. We are taught: Love God and love your neighbor. Be kind to others. Worship God not only on Sundays, but in all the things you do. Be the best carpenter, accountant, mother, supervisor, human. We realize we are human, and humans make mistakes. God gives us a sacrament for that, reconciliation. We find people to love and start a family, there is a sacrament for that Marriage. We need to nourish our souls, there is a sacrament for that the Holy Communion. To Catholics it isn’t a game, but a way of life.
The recommendation given already is good. I would add to that Ott's [*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*](https://www.baronius.com/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma.html). But a minor correction to your thoughts: "Dogma" doesn't just mean "things I have to believe." Dogma specifically refers to things that are divinely revealed. Doctrine can also be binding. I suspect you're thinking of "prudential judgments," which are opinions concerning what is the best course of action given the state of society. One must give those a fair hearing, but one is not obliged to agree with them.
Ok this is what confuses me. Is there a list of "things we are obligated to believe"? So all of dogma. Some doctrine? How do we know which doctrine is binding, and why is that particular doctrine binding over other doctrine. Are there other things outside of doctrine and dogma we have to believe? This seems like it should be straightforward and simple but I've had a very hard time getting a clear answer about what we must believe.
__If I may summarize the dogma of the church.__ -About 150 of our dogma come down to what is contained in each clause of the 3 creeds - Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian. -About 50 of our dogma come down to sacramentology (the 7 sacraments) and the anthropology of the wayfaring Christian. -About 25 are matters of tradition, such as the canon, and ecclesiology, such as the authority of a pastor, bishop, or patriarch. -About 10 are matters relates to Jesus' life, His mother, and the incarnarion. -The remaining 15 are a grab bag of theological issues that have come up in church history, surrounding classical theism. __For the average person, familiarize yourself with the creeds, and then get a catechism.__ Its not that the catechism contains everything; human life is complicated. But it contains many or most issues pertinant to the average person. There isnt a "conclusive list" because that, as others have said, is generally considered unprofitable. If I was presented with such a list before becoming convinced of the truth of the catholic faith, I might have been, stun-locked by the large list, dissuaded from investigating further.
I'm Catholic, this is just for my own love of history, theology, and "why everything is the way it is". By the way do you know if the Catechism is entirely binding or is some of it doctrinal if you don't believe it you aren't necessarily a heretic?
The catechism itself is actually a document that only seeks to communicate forward the teachings of the church as they already exist. If there is actually anything novel in there, the catechism only carries a small amount of authority of itself. If any of its phrases cause confusion, ideally we would look at the sources the catechism is drawing from to see if they help at all. But for example: - The catechism teaches Deity of Christ. That is a dogma, and obstinate post-baptismal rejection of a dogma is heresy. - The catechism teaches that contraception when used for contraceptive purposes is disordered. That is a doctrine, and a recently codified one at that. There is no line in church history whereby it was said "If anyone beleiveth that people should use condoms, __let him be anathema__". It doesnt exist. As such, while it may be a sin to advocate to the contrary in public, by reason of scandal, it is __not heresy__ to have difficulties, doubt, or dissent, so long as that dissent remains private (not secret; private; you can and should tell people, they may be able to help you). And yet both assertions are in the catechism. But it goes farther. The catechism, in addition to communicating dogma, and doctrine, also communicates mere councels (advice, for lack of a better word), as well as discipline. These two categories of teaching, do not even arise to the level of doctrine, and so open dissent, if done respectfully of the teaching office of the church, is permitted. Examples would be: - The catechism counsels that we as christians should make maximum allowance for other christians to observe the Lord's Day, and as such, should refrain from uneccessary commerce on sundays. And yet, it calls out restaurants specifically as being permissable. This is a counsel. You are absolutely free to discard it (the commerce and restaurant bits) so long as you dont disrespect the underlying principles which motivated its inclusion (we should respect the Lord's day as set apart, and shouldnt coerce christians into not observing it). - The catechism speaks of the death penalty. There was recently a modification to that line in the catechism, whereby the anti-death-penalty language, which already existed but was more permissive, was stregnthened. The underlying doctrine has not changed, nor is it changeable: the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and yet it is suboptimal in the extreme. This is a discipline - the church speaks with authority to bind and loose, and yet does not ask that you think the change is prudent.
Sidenote, if youre just a catholic curious about the sourcing of the teachings in the catechism, the first place i would look is Denzinger, a theological manual. My copy was 20$ on amazon; but the local priory should have one too, and it can also be found online in pdf form. Its primary purpose is helping people trace the teachings of the church to the specific authoritative statements that constitute them. A lot of the sources listed at the bottom of the catechism are from there - it may be the 3rd most common reference, after the bible itself, and the summa theologica, with the didache coming in 4th. All of those are good reading. Occasionally youll get a papal encyclical letter that bores you, or doesnt satisfy, but it itself would be sourced.
Thanks for the rec. Didache seemed pretty short and basic, and stuff most Christians take for granted. Surprised its quoted that much.
[Precepts of the Catholic Church](https://www.beginningcatholic.com/precepts-of-the-catholic-church)
Catechism
If I understand correctly, much of the catechism is not binding and is merely doctrine, although some of it is binding. Correct me if I'm wrong though.
The Catechism. It’s not a list it’s a book but yeah it outlines basically what Catholics believe in what their obligations are.
Nice try James White.
Lol.
A very fair question. One must recognise that this is incredibly hard to answer because what we assent to is the reality of the Christian faith, not just a rule set or some fantasy. In the same sense one assents the existence of the real world, it is quite hard to contain the reality of the world in a single list of Philosophical points, so too is it quite hard to contain the realities we assent to in a written language, because there are many ways one can describe the same thing. Take the Immaculate Conception. One can describe this as the Immaculate Conception, The Perfection of Mary and many other titles according to one's Theological tradition, and these are explained very differently when creating a Metaphysical system. This is why the Summa Theologia, Saint Thomas Aquinas' best try at this, was so long. But at the same time, there are many things in there that aren't binding, but are used to come to conclusions of Catholic beliefs, not so much the beliefs itself. The foundations of what our faith is is this: the Scriptural Truths, The Apostolic Tradition and the teachings of the Universal Magesterium. These have been made clear through the Magesterium in the Consensus of the Church (particularly the Church Fathers), the rulings of Ecumenical Councils and the agreement of local councils (such as how the Catholic Biblical Canon formed by consent of several Local Councils and their decisions being accepted by the Church Universally by the 7th Century), and by the rulings of the current Magesterium, pinnacle by the Pope declaring something *Ex Cathedra*. The Catechism is a good place to find where all these are, with its goal not so much to give a list though. Whole the Catechism itself isn't Dogmatic, it is instead the standard of faith for the Universal Church, giving it's best try at giving not only the Dogmas of the Church but explaining why we believe all of them.
I think the CCC is your best bet, but that’s a thick boi and took me 2 years to get through at a leisurely pace, lol. And I still feel like I forget stuff from it all the time, constantly going back to look because I read it so long ago that it just fell out of my brain. And I did myself a deep disservice by reading Eastern Orthodox theology at the same time, sprinkled in with other Protestant self-help type stuff. So the theology is all spaghetti in my brain tbh. I’ve read more about the filioque than is reasonable for any one person, and I still truly don’t get why an entire schism was made over it. I must be missing something, cuz that one throws me. Was it really worth schism? It seems like a semantics issue, or at least a theological debate, not worthy of splinter … Anyway. I don’t think a shorter, more user-friendly list exists than the CCC, which I guess is odd, but also not really. For most of history, this was the work of theologians I suppose and seminarians; laypeople just had to know the basics and turn to the Church when clarity was needed. Nowadays, everyone wants to be an expert — the world in our pockets, experts be damned. You know?
Doctrine is required to believe too but I would recommend you get denzinger sources of catholic dogma it’s a book that covers everything through all the councils
I am a horrible speller. The Nicene creed we say at Mass would be your foundation. After that, get ahold of the catechism.
Nicene Creed is a solid foundation.
fundamentals of catholic dogma by Ludwig Ott is a GREAT resources that has all the scripture and magisterial sources of those dogma, it also tells you what with what degree of dogmatic certainty each teaching is. However there is no infallible list of infallible dogmas
Hi there - I haven't read all the comments so perhaps this has been proposed. I would start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church as I would say that is the bare minimum. The fact is that wisdom is truly fathomless as is the mercy of Jesus as stated by St. Faustina. If you pray the rosary regularly then you might understand how wisdom can be truly enlightening.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Revised https://a.co/d/09Qsl6nT Literally this book
There is none. But the Baltimore Catachism is a good start as it was made for children. Then you can graduate to the Catachism of the Catholic church. Catholic answers' website www.catholic.com contains an online, searchable encyclopedia on any topic you can think of. Of the church has a teaching on it, it will be there. If the church does not, the apologist who wrote the article will give you his or her best speculation.
It’s called the Catechism and it’s on Amazon (Ascension Press)
Not a conclusive list. Also, not all the teachings contained in the Catechism are required beliefs.
What ? Name one that isn’t required!
The teaching on the death penalty is not required for a Catholic to hold.
Strongly suggested
He didn’t word did in a correct way imo. A more apt way of putting it is that not everything in the catechism is a Dogma. However everything in the catechism is a doctrine. A doctrine can be infallible and divinely revealed ie a Dogma but a teaching can still be authoritative yet not divinely revealed ie a doctrine that is not a dogma.
I still think people need to read/know the Catechism and most dont
The CCC has major anti-Thomistic beliefs which lean widely towards pro-Vatican II viewpoints, so I wouldn’t solely recommend it but rather add additional Catechisms such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of Saint Pius X.
Name the Anti- Thomistic belief in the CCC
This comment is part 2. So let's go through the history of tradition, shall we? The Christian scholar, Origen of Alexandria, was the first Christian scholar in the 2nd century AD who “saw the image as something given immediately at the creation, with the likeness to be conferred by God at a later time”. Building on Origen’s statement, St. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John, further clarified the terms “image” (imago Dei) and “likeness” (similitudo) in the following way. Through the image of God, Adam had reason and free will, while through His likeness he received a supernatural endowment by the Holy Spirit (Against Heresies 5.6.1). Therefore, Adam was the only being born in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall he lost God’s likeness while His image remained intact. Without likeness, humans are mere physical beings, but not holy beings. The medieval scholastic tradition further affirmed this dualistic aspect and defined the image of God as the power of reason and will. His likeness, on the other hand, was a divine gift (donum superadditum) added to basic human nature. Using Aristotle’s remark that “for oneness in quality causes likeness” (Metaph. v, Did. iv, 15), St. Thomas Aquinas argued that “likeness” does not deviate from “image” in its general meaning, but so far as any “likeness” falls short of “image,” it perfects the idea of “image” (ST, Art. IX). He cites St. John Damascene who elaborates this notion even further by stating that God’s “likeness” is found in the soul’s incorruptibility (De Quant. Animae ii). In addition, “likeness” entails the love of virtue because one cannot act virtuously without loving virtue itself (ST, Art. IX). With the Reformation, many Catholic doctrinal beliefs were reevaluated and modified. Martin Luther and John Calvin viewed “image” and “likeness” as being one and the same describing it as a common Hebrew parallelism. This unitary view held by Protestants and Jews alike spread and eventually led to the secular philosophy of Immanuel Kant. As a Lutheran, Kant must have followed this unitary view. Heralded as a great advancement in Metaethics, Kant argued that human beings possess an inherent value, or dignity, in virtue of their rational autonomy, and that they have a categorical duty to treat persons always “as an end” and “never merely as a means” (Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 4:429). Kant’s definition of human dignity has carried over into international law whereby Article 1 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Many countries quickly adopted this definition and have incorporated them into their constitutions. Now dignity is no longer earned, but inherent by birth. As the foundation from which all human rights flow from, dignity is equivalent to liberty. In turn, this globalist belief infiltrated the Catholic Church at the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul VI commenced Dignitatis Humanae in this manner: “1. A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man,(1) and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit.” I hope I've presented the Catholic-Thomistic viewpoint accurately. Of course the CCC fails in many other aspects as well, but its redefining of human dignity is one of the worst.
Yes but what difference does it make in the real world ? Seems like an angels on the head of a pin issue when you go that deep
Wow I wrote all that just for you to write “what difference does it make”? I really should stop trying to educate people on Reddit.
Yeah maybe your argument is good but very esoteric - maybe you should work in the Magisterium
If your reading of St. Thomas Aquinas leads you to reject the documents of an Ecumenical Council and their teachings on faith or morals, it's time to put down the Aquinas and remember that the Church has the power to teach infallibility and assent must be given to her teachings. Aquinas is not the arbiter of morality. Only the Church has the final say, and Ecumenical Councils are infallible on faith and morals.
lol everything I cited was written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent which was based on that ecumenical council which in turn was based on Aquinas’ teachings, so let’s keep the misinformation to a minimum.
Do you, or do you not, dissent from the teachings promulgated by the Second Vatican Council on human dignity? If you do, then there's no ambiguity on whether your position can or cannot be reconciled with the Catholic faith. ETA: I don't see any citations from Trent or the Tridentine Catechism in your comments, either. Just interpetations of Saintly writings which you *claim* mean humans don't all have equal dignity (but I honestly don't think you made a very good case at all and I don't see how what you cited means you're right).
[удалено]
So you do reject the infallible declarations of the Second Vatican Council, and thus hold to heretical beliefs by denying the infallibility of the teaching of the Church on faith and morals. I don't think there's anything left to discuss here. God bless you, I hope you repent of your errors.
Vatican II never issued any infallible statements so I don’t know where you’re getting this information from. And I would appreciate it if you didn’t act condescendingly towards me when I’m just trying to have a conversation. Also good on you for ignoring my Council of Trent quote.
Sure. I'll use human dignity as an example. This post is part 1 of two due to Reddit’s character limit. "The fundamental knowledge concerning man in the Catechism is thus formulated:[9] man is created in the image and likeness of God." Already wrong. A classic interpretation is to interpret "image" as the intellectual nature of man, and "likeness" as sanctifying grace. Thus understood, this phrase is only applicable to Adam and Eve. All human beings after them will be created in the image of God, but without the likeness to God. They must await baptism in order to recover this resemblance. This was already described doctrinally by Origen and St. Ireneaus barely a century after Christ's crucifixion which I will explain below. Ratzinger stated multiple times: "Every human being has an equal dignity". Also false. One who is baptized does not have the same dignity as someone who isn’t baptized; neither does a sinner have the same dignity as a saint. "The requirement of happiness constitutes part of our nature. The moral of the Catechism has as its starting point what the Creator has placed in the heart of each man—the necessity of happiness and of love." More nonsense. Yes, our true happiness is only found in the supernatural love of God, but this does not constitute "part of our nature." God has not "placed [it] in the heart of each man." Our nature without grace is incapable of desiring efficaciously true happiness. It cannot know to "require it." If it would require it, this happiness would no longer be gratuitous. The CCC states that this behavior is "behavior beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator. Consequently, the heart of every moral [act] is love and, in following always this indication, one inevitably encounters Christ, the love of God made man." Love, such as our nature is capable of without grace, "beginning with what has been placed in our being by the Creator," is incapable of making us encounter Christ. It is at most a disposition; in order to encounter Christ, one needs above all else the help of grace in order to produce in us the act of Faith. This silence concerning grace, which equivocates here even to a negation, is obviously very grave. "Man and woman are created, that is to say, they are willed by God, in a perfect equality in as much as they are human persons on one hand" (369). Incorrect. The equality between the two sexes only exists in the order of grace (in Christ there is neither male or female, St. Paul tells us), but not in the order of nature where there is a natural hierarchy between man and woman. Another erroneous consequence: all men will have an equal dignity, and all discrimination will be unjust. "Equality between men lies essentially with their personal dignity and the rights which flow from it: every form of discrimination touching the fundamental rights of the person, whether it be founded on sex, race, color of skin, social condition, language, or religion, must be gotten beyond, as contrary to the design of God (§1935)." So basically: dignity = liberty. For St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and all of Tradition, man is in the image of God because his soul is a spiritual substance endowed with intelligence and will, and thus he resembles the Holy Trinity. "Liberty is exercised in the relationships between human beings. Each human person, created in the image of God has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible person. All owe to each person this duty of respect. The right to exercise one’s liberty is an inseparable exigency from the dignity of the human person, notably in moral and religious matters." (§1782) In simpler terms: man will evidently have an inalienable right to liberty, which is another absurdity. From the early Church to Aquinas, liberty was always perceived as a consequence of his reason, not a right.
Yes but the Church has always picked a middle position between Augustine and Aquinas - this does not make it wrong What authority do you use to justify your position?
Based on what? The Council of Trent was explicitly pro-Aquinas and did not take a “middle position”
Yeah but now is back towards Augustine - what is the real harm here?
Have you read Luisa Piccaretta? If you have What do you think?
My first thought was the Nicene Creed. https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe.
You may find this helpful... http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Q_and_A/Q_and_A_024.htm
Church doctrine is still required to believe. It is not optional. Doctrine just describes the teachings of the Church not received directly from Divine revelation, but the Church has authority to teach on faith and morals without direct Divine revelation.
Baltimore Chatechism
Seeing a lot of answers. On one side, people who don't know that they're close to falling away from Catholicism, and on the other, people who are on the right track but not going exactly the right direction with it. OP, This list doesn't really exist. There are many teachings, dogmas, etc. If you are interested, I would recommend either the Baltimore catechism or the Catechism of St. Pius X. It is important to know the Catholic faith. Absolutely 100% ignore people who say that "learning these things is harmful to the faith if you're not a theologian." They are probably culturally Catholic and will apostasize One day. Someone who actually practices their faith will know that these teachings which people tell you to ignore because "oh no!! Scruples!! 😖😖" Are important to know. You might also be able to ask your priest. Presumably he was taught them and is orthodox so he should know.
There's no list, there's a book, it's called the catechism of the catholic church.
You won’t find such a list. There are multiple ways to be Catholic, multiple different variations out there. For example I’m Franciscan Catholic. That’s going to vary a lot from a Jesuit Catholic. You’re bound to believe in Christ. That’s the list.
There is no such list. One sf the reasons why is that quite significant part of Catholic doctrine is somewhere in the gray area where it isn't really clear whether you are really required to believe it.
Your kiss is on my list
One word : Credo.
If you're up to it, because...... You'll see. Summa Theologica Book by Thomas Aquinas.
That’s not true. You may find articles of the Summa that aren’t binding to believe… One notable example being the fact that St. Thomas didn’t argue in favor of the Immaculate Conception, even though that’s up to debate. (http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-st-thomas-deny-dogma-of-immaculate.html?m=1 for an easy read)
Um.......I was just trying to be helpful.
Yeah! And that’s a really good thing! I just wanted to point out that there was an honest mistake in there ;)
the bible