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

[rcwitness]

The Catechism contains some infallible teachings and non-infallible teachings.

when I teach, I directly reference Scripture which is infallible: but my teaching is not.
The Catechism directly references infallible teachings but the CCC is not infallible.

When you teach things, you teach things, admittedly against infallible Teachings of the Church. The Catechism contains Teachings that are infallible, and ones that are not necessarily infallible, but are not claiming to be. Still these relatively few teachings do not contradict infallible Teachings.

 

[goout]

once again : here is the point ( I say a major point)
Catholics do not know what is and is not an infallible teaching

Some do some don’t. “Catholics” don’t determine what is infallible and what is not, and in most cases do not worry much about it. I don’t worry one bit about it. I simply trust in what has been handed down to me.
Theologians and canon lawyers can figure out the fine details.

You say this is your point. Your point is agreed by probably just about anyone.
So what is the point?

 

[alwayswill]

When you teach things, you teach things, admittedly against infallible Teachings of the Church. The Catechism contains Teachings that are infallible, and ones that are not necessarily infallible, but are not claiming to be. Still these relatively few teachings do not contradict infallible Teachings.

my point stands:
if you say that or agree to
"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "

then you should know what are the infallible teachings.
and Catholic’s do not.

catholic.com/quickquestions/has-the-magisterium-only-definitively-interpreted-five-or-six-passages-of-scripture

 

[Peter_J]

The Catechism contains some infallible teachings and non-infallible teachings.

That’s also true of the Lutheran catechisms.

 

[alwayswill]

Some do some don’t. “Catholics” don’t determine what is infallible and what is not, and in most cases do not worry much about it. I don’t worry one bit about it. I simply trust in what has been handed down to me.
Theologians and canon lawyers can figure out the fine details.

You say this is your point. Your point is agreed by probably just about anyone.
So what is the point?

my point is
if you say that or agree to
"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "

then you should know what are the infallible teachings.
agreed?

 

[Peter_J]

my point is
**if you say that or agree to
"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "
**
then you should know what are the infallible teachings.

Are you talking about a denomination that affirms infallibility of Scripture? Or one that simply doesn’t believe in infallibility, period?

 

[alwayswill]

Are you talking about a denomination that affirms infallibility of Scripture? Or one that simply doesn’t believe in infallibility, period?

the context of the conversation is that Sola Scriptura practicing Churches hold to the infallibility of Scripture yet freely admit that any human ( other than Christ) , including Luther ( back to the OP), their pastor, and themselves are not infallible

 

[rcwitness]

my point stands:
if you say that or agree to
"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "

then you should know what are the infallible teachings.
and Catholic’s do not.

catholic.com/quickquestions/has-the-magisterium-only-definitively-interpreted-five-or-six-passages-of-scripture

I do not need to know every infallible Teaching. Do you know every Teaching of Scripture? According to the Church, we are able to repent, be Baptized and receive Communion with a formed and clear conscience.

I know that when the Church lawfully declares something, whether through the pope, or the Bishops in union with him, it is binding and protected from error.

More importantly, I attend the Lord’s Supper with the Church founded on the Peter and the Apostles. I do not believe something or practice something or Teach something which goes against what this Church Teaches.

 

[alwayswill]

…

I know that when the Church lawfully declares something, whether through the pope, or the Bishops in union with him, it is binding and protected from error.

once again : that is not completely true
The Church does teach that everything the Church lawfully declares is protected from error.

 

[rcwitness]

once again : that is not completely true
The Church does teach that everything the Church lawfully declares is protected from error.

that’s what I said.

I believe the Scriptures and what they Teach. But I don’t have all understanding of their Teachings without the aid of the Church. Neither do I have the ability to judge matters of others who are contradicting these Teachings.

Luther claimed this knowledge and authority, it. Seems to me. And many Christians today. You at least acknowledge you could be wrong, and the Catholic Church could be right.

 

[Peter_J]

the context of the conversation is that Sola Scriptura practicing Churches hold to the infallibility of Scripture yet freely admit that any human ( other than Christ) , including Luther ( back to the OP), their pastor, and themselves are not infallible

Sure. But for us Catholics, there are times when some are protected from error – an ecumenical council, for example.

By way of contrast, the Second Council of Ephesus (449) was deemed not to have been infallible or ecumenical.

 

[Peter_J]

The Church does teach that everything the Church lawfully declares is protected from error.

I’m assuming this is a paraphrase of Church teaching … Do you have the precise quote?

 

[rcwitness]

"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "

That’s not what I said, btw. All denominations contain infallible Teachings. All denominations contain Scripture. And they all are able to understand and Teach correct doctrine.

I said:
I can’t look at the relative passage in Matthew 18 (bind and loose) and conclude that Jesus means that the Church could be wrong. He is saying, no, I will guide the Church under these conditions to not err.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’ll assume that was hyperbole.

I prefer contemporary music in the worship service:
When drums were introduced, some people left for a church that had more hymns.
so what?

no Sola Scriptura practicing Christian thinks that is an issue.

And this has been my observation I admit Imay be wrong)
There is more unity of belief among the members of a dozen different Sola Scriptura practicing churches than in the pews of a single Catholic Church.
I chose what Sola Scriptura practicing church I attend based on preferences.

it is a matter of differing beliefs under the same roof or the same beliefs under the different roofs.
once again; unless you want to claim the infallible Scriptures (writings breathed out by God) actually teach conflicting truths then then you have to admit that unified teaching does not lead to unified beliefs in either Protestantism of Catholicism

Not hyperbole someone actually told me the drapery colors did cause a split. and if it’s happened once im sure it has happened again since then.

I think the point is that if you cant agree on the miniscule then you certainly won’t be agreeing on “essentials”. I used the essential term because it’s been thrown out there by protestant apologists. Then of course, that begs the question, what is essential and how do you determine that and by what authority? That goes unanswered because nobody knows.

And with all do respect, the statement about choosing a church based on preference kind of confirms what critics say about SS, that it’s Jesus and me, instead of Jesus and we, which is what God intended for us. Isnt part of our penance in life dealing with people and things we may not like very much? Personally, remaining protestant for me would have been so much easier and saved me countless headaches and arguments with my protestant family members. Would have saved me a painful annulment process and overall been so much more convenient. But I’m convinced the CC is the truth and I’ve come to the determination that this isn’t about me remaining in my comfort zone; it’s about doing the things God expects of us no matter how ugly it may get.

Ive seen differing opinions in the Catholic church for sure, but saw the same thing in protestant congregations. Usually they wont go spouting it out there, though, you have to get to know them before they start telling you their somewhat bizzare theories. So not sure how you arrived at your assertion of 12 protestant churches being more united than 1 Catholic church. I have been both and that has not been my experience. I’ve seen 2 different kinds of Catholics, the faithfull and the nominal. The faithful educate themselves and are in conformity with Church teaching. The nominal are lukewarm and wasting their time.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

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… It seems what I hear when I ask non Catholics is that the Bible is infallible and Scripture interprets Scripture. That has led to a chaotic mess.

and Luther said it would be a mess in that scenario like a year before he split. How incredibly ironic.

 

[alwayswill]

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… It seems what I hear when I ask non Catholics is that the Bible is infallible and Scripture interprets Scripture. That has led to a chaotic mess.

Me neither. I can’t look at the relative passage in Matthew 18 (bind and loose) and conclude that Jesus means that the Church could be wrong. He is saying, no, I will guide the Church under these conditions to not err.

my point is
if you say that or agree to
"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "

then you should know what are the infallible teachings.
agreed?

That’s not what I said, btw.
…

Maryt7777> I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible.

RCW> Me neither.

AW >if you say that or agree to "I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "

RCW>>]That’s not what I said, btw. ,…

We seem to be talking past each other:
I going to step away for awhile

 

[Lenten_ashes]

my point is
if you say that or agree to
"I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "

then you should know what are the infallible teachings.
agreed?

If we dont know we are at least open to correction if it can be demonstrated that we are in error. We are supposed to be under Church authority Matt 18:17.

But the mentality of SS often seems to be, im personally guided by the Holy Spirit so i cant be wrong, so if you disagree with me then you must be the one in error. I’ve encountered enough little popes in my life to know you can’t convince some folks no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

 

[rcwitness]

Maryt7777> I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible.
RCW> Me neither.
AW >if you say that or agree to "I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible. "

RCW>>]That’s not what I said, btw. ,…

We seem to be talking past each other:
I going to step away for awhile

I see. Yes, I agree that Scripture does support an infallible gift in the Church leadership. To “choose” a church which does not acknowledge this aspect and how it’s necessary to for the bible, continue an unbroken chain of leadership, to reject heresy, and to convict false interpretations, to uphold true interpretations, etc. is not for me.

 

[alwayswill]

If we dont know we are at least open to correction if it can be demonstrated that we are in error. We are supposed to be under Church authority Matt 18:17.

But the mentality of SS often seems to be, im personally guided by the Holy Spirit so i cant be wrong, so if you disagree with me then you must be the one in error. I’ve encountered enough little popes in my life to know you can’t convince some folks no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

Ok: so there are Protestants who don’t understand SS;

Please use these descriptions of Sola Scriptura

The first two are from Catholic sources
They work for me: I’m sure you can use them

**From Catholic.com
**“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”

Archived here: web.archive.org/web/201003300…4/0402fea3.asp

---

**From NEWADVENT.org **Sola scriptura (“Bible alone”)

The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the expanding and deepening consciousness of Christendom. Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. …"

---

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
**
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth.** I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly,** it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken.** Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura** is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.**
-James White—

---

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.

Sola scriptura, however**, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible.** Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

 

[rcwitness]

This thread is not about the merits of SS.
This thread is about the continuing misrepresentations and strawman arguments continually used by Catholics.
It get rebuked every time (even by Catholic sources) and the posters here still misrepresent SS.

No, this thread is asking if people think Martin Luther believed his Teachings were infallible. I think there is an aspect that evangelicals do portray their teachings and interpretations as absolutely true because they claim Sola Scriptura. But the Catholic faith does NOT Teach that Councils and the pope have greater authority than Scripture. That is a strawman.