Did Luther claim for himself that infallibility, which he would not allow to the Church of Christ?

[Memaw]

Yes, I hear your point. But it’s one that is obvious too. Catholics are divided. Why they are divided is the real question.

Orthodox Catholics accept the Catechism as faithful Teaching of the Church of God. And that it must be adhered to. That’s what is important. Heterodox Catholics excuse themselves from Teaching for all sorts of various reasons.

Sometimes called “cafeteria Catholics” I would much rather be there for the “Full Banquet” then just for a snack!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[alwayswill]

Sometimes called “cafeteria Catholics” I would much rather be there for the “Full Banquet” then just for a snack!! God Bless, Memaw

not talking about cafeteria Catholics
Akin and Carroll are heavyweights in the apologetic / defending the faith battle

 

[goout]

the entire exchange proves my point:
Catholics do not agree if Unam Sanctam contains an infallible declaration.
Akin and others say it is.
Carroll and others say it is not.

This is not a point, it is simply an observation of human nature that we do not all understand things fully. Lay people especially cannot be expected to be fully articulate in matters that philosophers and theologians have studied for centuries. Nonetheless, with some in depth study, thought, and prayer, a good understanding can be had.

Dr Carroll does not substantially disagree with Jimmy Akin.
You have misquoted Dr Carroll and proof texted Jimmy Akin. Mr Akin’s article is a lengthy and nuanced article.

You have misrepresented Dr Carroll as saying Unam Sanctan is not infallible. He does not say specifically say that, and without putting words in his mouth, I doubt if he does say that.

In the exchange that is confusing you, there is an objection that Dr Carroll responds to. You represented the objection as Dr Carroll’s idea. Therein lies the danger in using google to source doctrine without reading context and thinking about it.
Dr Carroll is responding to the assertion that Unam Sanctam is the fullest and most current teaching of the Church, and must be held “in the sense with which it was promulgated”. That is what he is taking issue with. He is taking issue with the degradation of the current catechism above all, and the exaltation of US as a more complete expression of Church teaching.

What do you think about the Catechism’s discussion of this issue? It is the current thought of the Church, and since we don’t live in the 1200’s this is most relevant.

 

[Peter_J]

Read back through the thread please if it is important to you.

Yes boss.

 

[goout]

Yes boss.

Ok, what is the problem? Why the attitude?
Is this the new face of Christian apologetics?

 

[alwayswill]

This is not a point, it is simply an observation of human nature that we do not all understand things fully. Lay people especially cannot be expected to be fully articulate in matters that philosophers and theologians have studied for centuries. Nonetheless, with some in depth study, thought, and prayer, a good understanding can be had.

Dr Carroll does not substantially disagree with Jimmy Akin.
You have misquoted Dr Carroll and proof texted Jimmy Akin. Mr Akin’s article is a lengthy and nuanced article.

You have misrepresented Dr Carroll as saying Unam Sanctan is not infallible. He does not say specifically say that, and without putting words in his mouth, I doubt if he does say that.

In the exchange that is confusing you, there is an objection that Dr Carroll responds to. You represented the objection as Dr Carroll’s idea. Therein lies the danger in using google to source doctrine without reading context and thinking about it.
Dr Carroll is responding to the assertion that Unam Sanctam is the fullest and most current teaching of the Church, and must be held “in the sense with which it was promulgated”. That is what he is taking issue with. He is taking issue with the degradation of the current catechism above all, and the exaltation of US as a more complete expression of Church teaching.

What do you think about the Catechism’s discussion of this issue? It is the current thought of the Church, and since we don’t live in the 1200’s this is most relevant.

it seems to me that when someone says the following:

"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. There is no assurance of the truth of any doctrine… "

Then they should know what teachings are infallible.
Am I wrong to assume that?

 

[rcwitness]

not talking about cafeteria Catholics
Akin and Carroll are heavyweights in the apologetic / defending the faith battle

Yes, I’m not talking about Cafeteria Cats either. But again, I hear ya. I think some (who claim such a small number of Infallible Teachings) have a more restricted view of it. While I am more among those who recognize a more general use of Infallibility. I think it’s silly to think the Catechism would not have a strong aspect of Infallibility about it. But not all things in it deal with unchangeable doctrine, that’s all.

We’ve already raised the issue of Scripture as having teachings that are changeable too. In this sense, someone like Carroll would see, for example, St Paul’s teaching about women’s head covering as fallible. Yet Paul portrays it as a Sacred Tradition. How do we determine if this is binding on Christians, or something that can change?

 

[goout]

it seems to me that when someone says the following:

"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. There is no assurance of the truth of any doctrine… "

Then they should know what teachings are infallible.
Am I wrong to assume that?

That would be best case scenario for sure. If you and I were theologians and first class philosophers we might have a better handle on the specifics.

But in itself, an acknowledgment of the presence of Christ’s gift of truth is the starting point. The relative absorption of the specifics is another, yet related, matter.
Without a docility to the action of the Holy Spirit and it’s expression through the Church, how can one understand the specifics? One follows the other most often. It would be a rare individual who is infused with an understanding, then finds the authoritative expression of it.
First, the gift is found, then it is opened.

Docility to the Holy Spirit is fostered by good will in any case, absent a Pauline punch in the gut.

 

[goout]

Yes, I’m not talking about Cafeteria Cats either. But again, I hear ya. I think some (who claim such a small number of Infallible Teachings) have a more restricted view of it. While I am more among those who recognize a more general use of Infallibility. I think it’s silly to think the Catechism would not have a strong aspect of Infallibility about it. But not all things in it deal with unchangeable doctrine, that’s all.

We’ve already raised the issue of Scripture as having teachings that are changeable too. In this sense, someone like Carroll would see, for example, St Paul’s teaching about women’s head covering as fallible. Yet Paul portrays it as a Sacred Tradition. How do we determine if this is binding on Christians, or something that can change?

How indeed?
If a seed is the infallible source of the tree, does the seed cease to be infallible when it is no longer expressed as a seed, and now looks like blooming branches?
The infallibility is still there, growing to maturity.

The Church is a living breathing developing organism. It cannot be defined entirely by words on a page from the 12th century.

 

[LutheranScholar]

I’m not sure that Dr. Martin Luther claimed infallibility for anything outside of Holy Scripture, on which he based his doctrine bible-researcher.com/luther03.html,
bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php. Dr. Martin Luther referred to himself as " a stinking bag of worms," if I recall his statement correctly in context of whether or not he wanted the churches who sided with him to be named for him:

*“I desire above all things that my name should be
concealed, and that none be called by the name of
Lutheran; but of Christian. What is Luther? My
doctrine is not mine, but Christ’s. I was not crucified
for any. How comes it to pass, that I, who am but
a filthy, stinking bag of worms; that any of the
sons of God should be denominated from my name?
Away with these schismatical names! Let us be
denominated from Christ, from whom alone we
have our doctrine.” * sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16469&forum=3

Just a plain Evangelical Christian, Dr. Luther, as I’m sure Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Thomas Muntzer and John Huss would say about themselves, as indeed would St. Thomas More, Erasmus of Rotterdam and other Catholics of the day say about themselves. The difference was that Luther, in contrast with some other Reformers, kept the three essential sacraments ( Baptism, Absolution and Communion) and retained the Mass with certain adjustments bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article24. He didn’t want to depart the Church Catholic, but reform it ( nor was he the first to do so. I believe John Wycliffe of England is the one referred to as the " Morning Star of the Reformation" christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1201-1500/john-wycliffe-reformation-morningstar-11629869.html).

 

[goout]

I’m not sure that Dr. Martin Luther claimed infallibility for anything outside of Holy Scripture, on which he based his doctrine bible-researcher.com/luther03.html,
bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php. Dr. Martin Luther referred to himself as " a stinking bag of worms," if I recall his statement correctly in context of whether or not he wanted the churches who sided with him to be named for him:

*“I desire above all things that my name should be
concealed, and that none be called by the name of
Lutheran; but of Christian. What is Luther? My
doctrine is not mine, but Christ’s. I was not crucified
for any. How comes it to pass, that I, who am but
a filthy, stinking bag of worms; that any of the
sons of God should be denominated from my name?
Away with these schismatical names! Let us be
denominated from Christ, from whom alone we
have our doctrine.” * sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16469&forum=3

Just a plain Evangelical Christian, Dr. Luther, as I’m sure Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Thomas Muntzer and John Huss would say about themselves, as indeed would St. Thomas More, Erasmus of Rotterdam and other Catholics of the day say about themselves. The difference was that Luther, in contrast with some other Reformers, kept the three essential sacraments ( Baptism, Absolution and Communion) and retained the Mass with certain adjustments bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article24. He didn’t want to depart the Church Catholic, but reform it ( nor was he the first to do so. I believe John Wycliffe of England is the one referred to as the " Morning Star of the Reformation" christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1201-1500/john-wycliffe-reformation-morningstar-11629869.html).

christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/march/wycliffe-associates-leaves-wga-bible-translation-son-of-god.html
Same website: The Wycliffe’s defending the bible from the new Wycliffes. On it goes.

The Church did not have a difficult time with Wycliffe because he wanted commoners to read Scripture, the Church objected to his translating it for himself against accepted translations.
There were translations of the bible into English before Wycliffe,despite the undead myth that the Catholic Church prevented “the people” from reading scripture, and they chained the bible to the pulpit!!! because the Church wanted to keep scripture in it’s own evil hands.
(of course, almost no one could read in those days, and it took like 8 years to copy scripture because there were no presses, so of course, it might be a good idea to protect the bible you have…)