What Catholics Believe - The Blessed Trinity

Faithful Catholics believe in the Blessed Trinity, that is three divine persons in one God.  There are not three gods, only one God.  The persons are distinct yet coequal in substance, nature, divinity, and glory.   Let us look at some of the teachings on the Blessed Trinity:

The Council (Synod) of Toledo spells out the definition quite well, here is an excerpt:

312 [529] For, if we are asked about the single persons, we must confess that each is God. Therefore, we say that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God ' each one distinctly; yet there are not three gods, but one God. Similarly, we say that the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty, each one distinctly; yet there are not three almighty ones, but one Almighty, as we profess one light and one principle. Hence we confess and believe that each person distinctly is fully God, and the three persons together are one God. Theirs is an undivided and equal Godhead, majesty and power, which is neither diminished in the single persons nor increased in the three. For it is not less when each person is called God separately, nor is it greater when all three persons are called one God. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also explains "distinction" with "equality:"

CCC 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." The divine Unity is Triune.

The Formula "The Merciful Trinity" [D 17]

The merciful Trinity is one divine Godhead.  Consequently the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one source, one substance, one virtue and one power.  We say that God the Father and God the Son and god the Holy Ghost are not three gods, but we very piously confess one God.  For although we name three persons, we publicly declare with the catholic and apostolic voice that they are one substance.  Therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, these three are one [cf. 1 John 5:7].  Three, neither confused, nor separated, but both distinctly joined and though joined, distinct; united in substance, but differentiated in name, joined in nature, distinct in person, equal in divinity, entirely similar in majesty, united in trinity, sharers in splendor.  They are one in such a way, that we do not doubt that that they are also three; and they are three in such a way that we acknowledge that the cannot be disjoined from one another.  Therefore there is no doubt, that an insult to one is an affront to all, becase the praise of on pertains to the glory of all.

For this is the principal point of our faith according to the Gospel and the apostolic doctrine, that our Lord Jesus Christ and the Son of Godare not separated from the Father either in the acknowledgement of honor, or in the power of virtue, or in the divine nature of substance, or be an interval of time.  And therefore if anyone says that the Son of God, who just as he is truly God, so also is true man except in sin alone, did not possess something belonging to human nature or did not possess something belonging to the Godhead, he should be judged wicked and hostile to the Catholic and apostolic Church.

[D = Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum aka:  Sources of Catholic Dogma] 

Athanasian Creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

[qtd. from:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm ]

More readings:

Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ:  http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Trinity/Trinity_001.htm

Fr. William G. Most, EWTN:  https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/GODA22.htm

Tim Staples, Catholic Answers:  http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/explaining-the-trinity

Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

What Constitutes an Infallible Definition or Dogma

When is a Catholic teaching MORE than just a teaching and considered an "infallible" teaching or definition?  In a recent discussion here on CathApol with "John" (which comments had to be ended after responses became repetitious) the matter of "dogma" v. "dogmatic" came up - and is there a difference when the word "dogmatic" is used by an ecumenical council?  Well yes!  Just because the word "dogmatic" is used does not mean that new dogma is being defined.  The issue came up because "John" challenged that the Second Vatican Council (VCII), in his interpretation, has contradicted the Council of Florence on the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  (I do not wish to, and will not, rehash that entire discussion - feel free to go to the archives here to read the exchange - there's really nothing more to say there).  The purpose of this posting is to explain and discuss the matter of truly when dogma is being defined by a council or pope.  This charism of infallibility is really rarely used.

When Was The Charism Last Utilized?

I will grant, there is some debate about this - but to go back to the last time where there is no doubt, we go back to 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the doctrine on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Munificentimus Deus.  Before that we go back to the First Vatican Council (VCI) wherein papal infallibility is defined.  Prior to that the next time is 1854 in Ineffabilis Deus in which the Immaculate Conception is defined.  In the last two hundred years, the charism has only been utilized three times.

Is the Entire Document/Council Considered Infallible?

Even within an entire document or council, the only part which can be considered infallible is the definition itself.  There are explanations and theological opinions related to the dogma expressed, but those opinions, as respectful and true they might be, are not under the charism of infallibility - such as the definition itself is.  So to re-emphasize, even in VCI, the last "dogmatic council," in all the documents from that council, the only part which is considered to be infallible is that one small section of the definition itself.  Even though VCII has sections entitled "The Dogmatic Constitution on..." there is no new dogma defined at VCII - VCII is not even officially referred to as a "dogmatic council," rather it is (the first ecumenical council of its kind) a "pastoral council."

Does the Charism of Infallibility Validate the Papacy?

No, the charism of infallibility was defined in Scripture (Matthew 16:18-19) by Jesus Christ Himself.  Every pope has the charism, but the fact is relatively few have utilized it.  So, the charism does not validate a papacy, but a pope (or council) may invoke it when there is a controversy large enough that it is splitting the Church.  A papal or concilliar definition then ends the controversy for all faithful Catholics.  From the point the infallible definition forward there can be no further public debate between faithful Catholics.

How About Those Who Denied a Dogma Prior to the Definition?

Prior to the official promulgation of the infallible definition good and faithful Catholics may have stood on "the wrong side" of the definition, does this mean they are now under anathema?  No!  Prior to that defining moment they are not held accountable or culpable for standing in opposition to it.  If they are still alive when the infallible definition is promulgated then they must conform to and accept the dogma.  If they have died prior to the defining moment then they are not guilty of the anathema(s) which accompany the denial of such a definition.

If the Charism is Used So Infrequently, What Good is it?

It is good for ending the debate over a subject which may be splitting the faithful.  This level of debate does not happen very often, and thus the charism is not utilized very often.  The important factor here is that the pope has been given this authority (Matthew 16:18-19) and so has the college of bishops (Matthew 18:18) and to deny the matter of infallibility is to deny the Scriptures which promise it.  Whether or not it is ever used, the fact remains that it CAN be used for "whatsoever" they shall bind on Earth shall also be bound in Heaven.  Unless one contends that error can be bound in Heaven, then we must conclude this binding is infallible.

Where is the Infallible List of Infallible Doctrines?

The fact of the matter is no such "list" exists.  Why?  Such a "list" would be more of a disciplinary action, and disciplines can change - say a new dogmatic definition comes about - then "the list" would need to be amended.  We do have reliable sources, like Dr. Ludwig Ott's "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" as a good starting place.  We tend to get this question from a challenger who is seeking a "gotcha" question, as if such a list is necessary - when in reality, it is not.  If any Catholic has concerns about whether or not a specific teaching is dogma, it's not hard to find out.  If such a challenger has a genuine question regarding a specific teaching, as to whether or not it is dogma, I would be happy to provide an answer - just use the "comments" section here.

When is a Papal Declaration Considered Infallible?

As we've already discussed, the charism is scriptural, so there can be no doubt among Bible-believing Christians that it exists, so when does it exist?  The formula presented at the First Vatican Council (VCI) spells it out quite clearly:

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

• that is, when,

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

• he possesses,

• by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, (Matthew 16:18-19)

• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

Keep in mind, this is coming from an ecumenical council as a defining statement (per Matthew 18:18).  I must repeat, VCI while it is expressly defining dogma here - it is really only reaffirming what has already been defined by Scripture in Matthew 16:18-19.  It does make this dogma unquestionable by faithful Christians - and there was a group called "The Old Catholics" which did not accept this definition and officially split with the Church shortly after VCI.

The bottom line is - when the bishops of the world are gathered in ecumenical council and they specifically define something - it is unchangeable, it is dogma.  Likewise, when a pope uses the above formula then such a decree from him would be unchangeable, it is dogma. 

Necessity of Baptism for Salvation

Has Catholic Teaching Changed with regard to the Necessity of Baptism?
In recent discussions with "John" (that's all I know him by) I have insisted that no dogma has ever been changed.  He challenged with the teaching on the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, and he points to the Ecumenical Council of Florence for the "definition" put forth by that council:

Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 6, 1439 AD:
With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.
...
Also (defining), the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

So, while not exactly the formula we expect from an infallibly defined dogma, this does appear to be a "definition" of the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism - and those who die without Baptism "go downward straightaway to Hell."  Then we come to modern teaching:

CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.  http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1257.htm

Now, before I continue - keep in mind, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an infallible document - and NO "catechism" ever has been.  That being said, the keys here in the modern teaching are: 
a) the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude and 
b) God Himself has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.
And for another modern teaching:

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

 
29. The Catholic Church's belief that Baptism is necessary for salvation was powerfully expressed in the Decree for the Jacobites at the Council of Florence in 1442: “There is no other way to come to the aid [of little children] than the sacrament of Baptism by which they are snatched from the power of the devil and adopted as children of God”. This teaching implies a very vivid perception of the divine favour displayed in the sacramental economy instituted by Christ; the Church does not know of any other means which would certainly give little children access to eternal life. However, the Church has also traditionally recognized some substitutions for Baptism of water (which is the sacramental incorporation into the mystery of Christ dead and risen), namely, Baptism of blood (incorporation into Christ by witness of martyrdom for Christ) and Baptism of desire (incorporation into Christ by the desire or longing for sacramental Baptism). During the 20th century, some theologians, developing certain more ancient theological theses, proposed to recognize for little children either some kind of Baptism of blood (by taking into consideration the suffering and death of these infants), or some kind of Baptism of desire (by invoking an “unconscious desire” for Baptism in these infants oriented toward justification, or the desire of the Church). The proposals invoking some kind of Baptism of desire or Baptism of blood, however, involved certain difficulties. On the one hand, the adult's act of desire for Baptism can hardly be attributed to children. The little child is scarcely capable of supplying the fully free and responsible personal act which would constitute a substitution for sacramental Baptism; such a fully free and responsible act is rooted in a judgement of reason and cannot be properly achieved before the human person has reached a sufficient or appropriate use of reason (aetas discretionis: “age of discretion”). On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how the Church could properly “supply” for unbaptised infants. The case of sacramental Baptism, instead, is quite different because sacramental Baptism, administered to infants, obtains grace in virtue of that which is specifically proper to the sacrament as such, that is, the certain gift of regeneration by the power of Christ himself. That is why Pope Pius XII, recalling the importance of sacramental Baptism, explained in the “Allocution to Italian Midwives” in 1951: “The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain him sanctifying grace and so supply for the lack of Baptism; to the child still unborn, or newly born, this way is not open”.  This gave rise among theologians to a renewed reflection on the dispositions of infants with respect to the reception of divine grace, on the possibility of an extra-sacramental configuration to Christ, and on the maternal mediation of the Church.
...

101. “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:14; cf.1Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism”.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Again, this commission is not infallible - and is expressing compassion for grieving parents that they MAY have hope in God's mercy.  This is not a "change" in the dogma, for even the commission goes on to stress the importance of the Sacrament of Baptism as well as stressing that no one should delay the sacrament from any child.   The fact that there is theological speculation on how God MAY have mercy on those whom He chooses does not change the fact that "the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude."

Now, to answer the question this article asks...  no, the Church has not changed the teaching on the necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism.  The only way any such speculation would have the affect of "changing dogma" is if another definition was made, using the proper formula, which would be contrary to the initial dogma - and THAT has never happened.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Can Catholic Doctrine Change?

A friend of mine posed the following to me...

Thoughts? Change occurs in official (non-defined) Catholic doctrine like this: 

1. The doctrine is insisted on more and more sternly and vigorously. 
2. Then things go quiet. 
3. Then it is allowed that circumstances have changed, so that what may have been universally true is now only usually true. 
4. Then a few exceptions are made. 
5. Then no real attempt is made to implement the teaching. 
6. Then statements are made which indirectly contradict the teaching. 
7. Then it is stated that opposite of the original teaching is true and that in fact this is what was always taught, when the original teaching is rightly understood. 

This is certainly the case with usury, suicide, "the fate of unbaptized infants", the status of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and slavery.

My initial response was:

I am not aware of any of those being "universal teachings" to begin with. In order for me to comment I'd need to see the alleged original, universal teaching and contrast that with the alleged new teaching.

He said:

I don't think it was saying they were dogmatic definitions but were examples of "official (non-defined) Catholic doctrine."

I responded:

And I don't think I need to tell you that even "official" but "non-defined" doctrines can change. It is "official" that Latin Rite priests are not married, but this could change too - and there are already some exceptions to that "rule."

He said:

The rule that Latin Rite priests are not married (generally) is not doctrine, is it? It's discipline, right?

And continues...

I just thought the progression of such changes in what I shared was interesting.

I answered:

Well, I would prepare a better answer for you if I had a better premise to start from. I need to see the alleged original "universal" teachings first. Examine them in context and then compare. I've answered several of those already in discussion groups on ACTS - but would be willing to do so again on CathApol.

My friend was not real interested in getting into a more formal debate, but I do believe the statements made are commonly made - and thus do deserve an answer. 

I continue now:
You are correct, the matter of married priests is a matter of discipline, and one which can change and already is acceptable in some rites of the Catholic Church.  In my humble opinion, far too much emphasis is made on this subject.  It is a matter of vocation.  If one is called to the celibate priesthood, then they should heed the call.  If one is not so called, then they should pursue marriage where they can be fruitful and multiply (or at least have the potential for such).

Usury:
The matter of usury is often related to the charging of interest on any loan of cash, however this perspective has changed - especially with the dawning of the 16th century and the advent of Protestantism, where charging interest became more and more commonplace.  Today "usury" would be defined as exorbitant interest which takes advantage of the poor and desperate - which, indeed, is the scriptural root of this concept (see Ex 22:25).  I find it interesting that in the parable of the talents, the servants who returned MORE than was given to them were rewarded for it and the one who returned exactly what he was entrusted with was cast out into the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, (Matt. 25:30) and was told that he should have at least invested in the bankers, where he could have earned interest on the money!  Scripture actually supports a FAIR collection and reception of interest (Matt. 25:27).  So, while challengers to the Catholic Church's position base their argument in a hyper-literal interpretation - they appear to be overlooking a broader interpretation which includes and even encourages participation in interest.  I would re-emphasize, this is not a matter of defined dogma and thus the Church can "teach" on the matter and "change" the teaching when it deems the teaching should be changed.  This is really a non-issue for apologetics for those who objectively look at it.

Suicide:
I am not aware of any change in Catholic teaching on suicide.  Thou shalt not kill includes killing of one's self.  It is a mortal sin to murder anyone, including yourself, so the conclusion could be drawn that one who successfully commits suicide has condemned themselves to Hell - but the Church condemns no one to Hell.  The teaching is clear, don't do it, but for one who does - well, only God is in the position of the Final Judge over the state of the soul at death.  What if the person after committing the act and before completely dying repents?  Again, God will judge whether that was sufficient or not.  Non-issue.

The Fate of Un-baptized Infants (aka Limbo):
Limbo was never a dogmatically defined teaching, though it was widely accepted and "taught."  Again, just because something is "taught" does not make it dogma.  If it's not dogma, it can change.  The Church does not reject the concept of Limbo - it just does not "teach" it anymore.  Again, another non-issue.

The Status of Eastern Orthodox Churches:
The "status" has not changed.  They are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.  The Catholic Church does not reject the legitimacy of Eastern Orthodox sacraments.  I am not sure what my friend is getting at here, this is not an apologetics issue.

Slavery:
Again, Scripture itself does not oppose all forms of slavery.  The matter is not something which is a change in dogma, but a cultural change in discipline.  Again, this is not a matter which needs "defending."

What concerns me as well is my friend is a former Catholic and really should already know these answers.  I'm a bit surprised he is throwing these rather weak and stereotypical anti-Catholic arguments.

Did Mary Die (Part 2)

The Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is drawing to an end now for 2013, and I was just browsing by Beggars All and saw the latest article (as of the publication of this article) from James Swan, who is rehashing an older discussion from at least nearly two years ago.  Here's a link to Swan's latest article: 

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/08/remembering-assumption-of-mary.html

And here are the comments so far there, including my own:

Nick said...The text of Munificenttisimus doesn't give any indication that Mary did not die. The text does however make comments to the effect that She did die:  http://taylormarshall.com/2013/08/did-the-virgin-mary-die.html

Either way though, your overall argument doesn't hold water because the Dormition is secondary to the dogma of the Assumption itself. Even Protestants claim there are such things as non-essential aspects to dogmas.
If you want real confusion, consider the fact Protestants cannot agree on whether Jesus died for everyone or not. Svendsen denied the L in TULIP while White affirms it.

5:20 PM, August 15, 2013

Conhecereis a Verdade said...This dogmatic definition, completely devoid of biblical, patristic and historical support, is extremely curious because Pius XII could define with all certainty that Mary ascended into heaven in body and soul, but can not tell if he really died or not. Hence the obvious ambiguity of the words "having completed the course of her earthly life."
Indeed, an outstanding example of the double discourse typical of the popes.
Hugo

9:10 PM, August 15, 2013

TomiPad said...Often Roman Catholics, under the premise that only infallible statements count, their church has never contradicted itself. Rome defines what a contradiction is and infallibly defines herself as possessing assured infallibility in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria. 

10:23 PM, August 15, 2013

Scott said...
As even this article from Swan points out, there is no definition of death in MD. The closest we come to that is that it DOES define "having completed the course of her earthly life." But again, MD does not seek to define whether she died or not, but that she was taken into Heaven, body and soul, and that IS defined, and infallibly so. Whether or not she died is PURELY a distraction to the TRUE subject at hand in MD.
My initial response to Swan's article from 2011 is here: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-mary-die.html
Scott<<<

11:08 PM, August 15, 2013 (actual Arizona Time of posting)

In short, what I said to Swan today is a reiteration of what was said nearly two years ago.  Why the continued attempt to distract?  

Now, if Swan wants to discuss or debate "Did Mary Die?" - that's fine!  But attempting to use THAT discussion to derail the infallible definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is, simply, not THAT discussion.

AMDG,

Scott<<<


A couple more comments, as of 11am, August 16, 2013 (Arizona time)...

  Stephen Galanis said...
Firstly, Nick, "doesn't give any indication that Mary did not die" is the argument from ignorance. And you've backed up your view by citing... the infallible magisteirum? No. By citing Taylor Marshall. And he's not infallible. That's his interpretation of the magisterium. Thank you for that demonstration of real-world Catholic authority. You do see the irony of how you responded? You claim an epistemological advantage of Protestants, but if Catholics have to defend the perspicuity of the magisterium, then logically, it has already failed to be perspicuous.

Scott, you're right, there's no definition of death in MD. And you'll have to admit there is some level of confusion about whether Mary died or not. It may be a distraction, but Rome ought to settle the debate if it can. And if Rome wants to make historical claims about the assumption of Mary - and it is an historical claim - surely it knows whether or not she died? How on earth can one begin to defend "Mary definitely was assumed into heaven, but whether it was before or after her death we don't know"? Because whatever source you imagine supports the assumption (there would have been eyewitnesses - family at her deathbed, that sort of thing), that source would also contain the datum of whether Mary had died or not prior to her assumption. It's remarkable that Rome, and you, claim to know one but not the other. And what of those Catholics who died before the assumption was made a required belief? It wasn't necessary for salvation before 1950, so that just looks like Rome dictating terms to God.
6:23 AM, August 16, 2013

 Scott said...
Stephen,
Dr. Marshall doesn't have to be infallible! We're not even discussing a topic under the charism of infallibility! I do find it a bit amusing to see Protestants continue to distract this way though - who do you think you're fooling?

As for your comment to me, whether or not she actually died is not important! What is important is that she "completed her course of her earthly life" and was "assumed, body and soul into Heaven." There is no real "need" for Rome to settle whether or not she experienced physical death - her course of this life was complete, period.

As I said (on the CathApol blog) if you want to discuss or debate whether she actually died, fine - that's another discussion. We can discuss this all you want, but when you get down to it, it's just musings of folks on the Internet positing opinions (ancient and/or new) regarding this.

MY POINT is that if we're "Remembering the Assumption of Mary" (as Swan entitled his article) then let us do that! Why the distraction?

We could discuss further, as you brought up, that prior to the 1950 defining of this dogma not all faithful Catholics held to the dogma - and I concur with that. The point, as you recognized, is that after the definition was promulgated no faithful Catholic can deny it. It becomes a recognition of the authority Jesus Christ empowered His Church with and denial of that authority becomes a denial of Christ - and THAT is more relevant than whether or not one "accepts" the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Scott<<<
1:50 PM, August 16, 2013

 

Transubstantiation

What, exactly, is Transubstantiation?  If you break down the word it is not too difficult.  The first part, "trans" means "change" and the next part "substantiation" comes from the word "substance" and the "tion" part indicates it is an act or action.  Putting it all together, it means a "change of substance" or the process of changing a substance from one thing to another.  The change may not be in what you "see" - but in the "substance" which truly "is" what something "is."  

This is what happened when Jesus took bread, and blessing it He said, "This IS my body;" and with wine He declared, "This IS My blood."  Sure, it still looked like and tasted like bread and wine, but upon the declaration of God Almighty Himself, it became His body and blood!  Who are we to disagree or argue against the very Word of God?  He also didn't stop there!  He added, "Do THIS as often as you partake in THIS."  That command was given to the Apostles, the first bishops of the Catholic Church and they, in turn, pass on this authority to their successors and give faculties to local priests to "Do THIS" as well.  Any "church" which does not profess THIS is NOT the Church which Jesus Christ built.

Bible Verses Defined By Catholic Church

The following are taken from Steve Ray's site:

The Church's Interpretation of Scripture

The Church has officially defined the interpretation for several passages of Scripture, but most people, Catholic or no, don't realize it. When they do know this is the case, even a well-informed Catholic cannot normally tell you which passages were authoritatively interpreted or what those interpretations were. What follows are all the authoratative interpretations of the Church has made of Scripture, taken from Heinrich Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma, nos. 789, 858, 874, 913, 926, 949, 1822. Remember that the word "anathema" does not mean "condemned to hell," it means "formally excommunicated," and is used in explicit statements of what the Church most emphatically does not believe. Remember also that the authoritative interpretations of these passages do not deny the possibility of additional, non-contradictory interpretations. It means only that the referenced passages certainly carry the defined meanings. Some also ask why the Church does not formally define the meaning and interpretation of every line of Scripture. The Church teaches what is necessary for understanding - what She says needs to be said, nor is any teaching more than is needful. Just as it will take an eternity to plumb the infinite depths of God, so would it take an eternity to plumb the depths of His Word. These passages were defined against pernicous heresies. Every heresy is traceable to a mis-understanding of some combinatinon of these passages.

 

Rom 5:12 - Council of Trent, June 17, 1546, "Decree on Original Sin",  section 2.

If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam has harmed him alone and not his posterity, and that the sanctity and justice, received from God, which he lost, he has lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he having been defiled by the sin of disobedience has transfused only death "and the punishments of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul," let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says: "By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [Rom 5:12]" 

Jn 3:5 - Council of Trent, March 3, 1547, "Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism," canon 2.

If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit [John 3:5]" are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema. 

Mt 26:26 ff; Mk 14:22l; Lk 22:19 ff; 1 Cor 11:23 ff - Council of Trent, October 11, 1551, "The Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist", chapter 1

First of all the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that in the nourishing sacrament of the Holy Eucharist after the consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially [canon 1] contained under the species of those sensible things. For these things are not mutally contradictory, that our Saviour Himself is always seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to the natural mode of existing, and yet that in many other places sacramentally He is present to us in His own substance by that manner of existence which, althogh we can scarcely express it in words, yet we can, however, by our understanding illumintated by faith, conceive to be possible to God, and which we ought most steadfastly to believe. For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have discussed this most holy sacrament, have most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so wonderful a sacrament at the Last Supper, when after the blessing of the bread and wine He testified in clear and definite words that He gave them His own body and His own blood; and those words which are recorded [Matthew 26:26ff; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19ff] by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by St. Paul [1 Cor 11:23 ff], since they contain within themselves that proper and very clear meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers, it is a most disgraceful thing for some contentious and wicked men to distort into fictitious and imaginary figures of speech, by which the real nature of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, recognizing with an ever grateful and recollecting mind this most excellent benefit of Christ, as the pillar and ground of truth [1 Tim 3:15], has detested these falsehoods, devised by impious men, as satanical. 

Jn 20:22 ff - Council of Trent, October 25, 1551, "Canons on the Sacrament of Penance," canon 3

If anyone says that those words of the Lord Savior: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained [John 20:22ff]", are not to be understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood from the beginning, but, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, distorts them to an authority for preaching the Gospel: let him be anathema. 

James 5:14 - Council of Trent, October 25, 1551, "Canons on Anointing of the Sick," canon 1

If anyone says that anointing of the sick is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ [cf. Mark 6:13], and promulgated by blessed James the Apostle [James 5:14], but is only a rite accepted by the Fathers, or a human fiction: let him be anathema. 

Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24 - Council of Trent, September 17, 1562 "Canons on the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass," canon 2

If anyone says that by these words: "Do this for a commemoration of me [Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24], Christ did not make the apostles priest, or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema. 

Mt 16:16; Jn 21:15 ff - Vatican I, July 18, 1870 "The Institution of Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter," chapter 1

[Against heretics and schismatics]. So we teach and declare that according to the testimonies of the Gospel and the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church of God was promised and was conferred immediately and directly upon the blessed Apostle Peter by Christ the Lord. For the one Simon, to whom He had before said: "Thou shalt be called Cephas [John 1:42]", after he had given forth his confession with those words: "Thou art Christ, Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16], the Lord spoke with these solemn words: "Blessed art thou, Simon bar Jonah; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: and I shall give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven [Matthew 16:17ff]." [Against Richerieus etc.] And upon Simon Peter alone Jesus after His resurrection conferred the jurisdicition of the highest pastor and rector over his entire fold, saying: "Feed my lambs," Feed my sheep [John 21:15ff]." To this teaching of Sacred Scriptures, so manifest as it has been always understood by the Catholic Church, are opposed openly the vicious opinions of those who perversely deny that the form of government in His Church was established by Christ the Lord; that to Peter alone, before the other apostles, whether individually or all together; was confided the true and proper primacy of jurisdiction by Christ; or, of those who affirm that the same primacy was not immediately and directly bestowed upon the blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through this Church upon him as the minister of the Church herself. 

http://www.catholic-convert.com/documents/BibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc