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

[rcwitness]

When Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) interprets the the Constitution,
are their rulings authoritative?
yes!
…are their rulings binding?
yes!
…are their rulings infallible? (defined as incapable of error)
I’m sure you would say “no”

when Jesus says something like “…you have heard said that…but I tell you that…”
Is Jesus speaking with authoritative, binding, infallibility?
Of course He is!

Are Unam Sanctam and the CCC authoritative and binding?
(I’m sure you will say “yes” )

Are Unam Sanctam and the CCC infallible?

SCOTUS can be used as an example to a certain degree. It does not claim “a universal and divine Truth”. Jesus and His Church do.

Infallibility means that what is weighed, judged, pronounced and decreed, within Canon Law, is bound in Heaven and on Earth. It is not merely man (flesh and blood) speaking, but the Lord.

Many times, just as in Scripture (though I’m not saying Church decrees are completely equal to Scripture), the understanding of a Church decree is wrong or twisted. The Catechism is “a sure norm” which considers and applies the whole of Church Teaching.

 

[alwayswill]

…

Infallibility means that what is weighed, judged, pronounced and decreed, within Canon Law, is bound in Heaven and on Earth. It is not merely man (flesh and blood) speaking, but the Lord.
…

I just want to be clear on this:

Are you saying God Himself is bound by what the Catholic Church as declared within Canon Law?

Whatever was meant, though, and whatever nuances have been introduced theologically about kinds or degrees of ecclesial communion, going forward everybody who has ever been Catholic will be juridically Catholic, attempts at formal defection or no. It was only in its marriage law that the Church made exceptions for formal defection, and now those exceptions are being retired.
jimmyakin.com/2009/12/once-a-catholic.html

" once a Catholic by baptism or reception one remain always remains a Catholic…Even those who have joined other religions, have become atheists or agnostics have been excommunicated remains Catholics."-New commentary on the Code of Canon Law> page 63

books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

RCwitness; are saying that God is bound to the Canon Law that someone can be an atheist and a Catholic?

 

[Peter_J]

This is a thread about infallibility:
how can it just be a matter of opinion on whether a teaching is infallible or not?
How can it not matter?

But what I’m not saying isn’t so much “it doesn’t matter whether Unam Sanctam is an infallible statement or not”. I’m saying that their opinion that it’s infallible doesn’t change anything (and, likewise, another person’s opinion that it isn’t infallible doesn’t change anything either).

 

[alwayswill]

…

Infallibility means that what is weighed, judged, pronounced and decreed, within Canon Law, is bound in Heaven and on Earth. It is not merely man (flesh and blood) speaking, but the Lord.
…

I’m thinking that most Catholics would not agree that God is bound by (or to) Canon Law degrees and pronouncements

 

[alwayswill]

But what I’m not saying isn’t so much “it doesn’t matter whether Unam Sanctam is an infallible statement or not”. I’m saying that their opinion that it’s infallible doesn’t change anything (and, likewise, another person’s opinion that it isn’t infallible doesn’t change anything either).

of course it matters:
If a teaching is not infallible then it can be “reversed”

Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994 an infallible doctrine or not?

"When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. (These documents are carefully crafted. “Infallible is missing for a reason.) Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”–although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office. Canonists and theologians the world over argued that** the teaching was not infallible for a variety of reasons. -**”
uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/infallible-teaching-womens-ordination

I have been astonished over the past few days at how many commentators, including Catholics widely known for their orthodoxy, have hastened to state that the Pope’s recent Apostolic Letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, is not infallible.
In fact, it is a textbook case of infallibility in action.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

if you want to discuss the infallibility of the certain teachings of the Catholic church: you need to know if the teaching is infallible.

 

[Peter_J]

Who’s Jimmy Akin?

 

[rcwitness]

Now my friend…
This thread is also about whether Luther, and subsequently many Protestants, Teach a certain and without possibility of error, Doctrine that the Catholic Church (strengthened through the Bishop of Rome) in fact officially Teaches some error, and does not posses the keys of the Kingdom.

Do you believe and spread this teaching? If so, are you absolutely certain, without the possibility of error, it is Truth, and have the authority to teach believers in Christ this?

Waiting for this answer…

 

[alwayswill]

Waiting for this answer…

Scripture tells of two things that are THE Truth
Christ and the Word

the truthfullness of all statements are to be judge again Jesus and the Word of God:

by definition: anything that contracts the Word of God must be in error.

This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced **the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters **of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves
St. Augustine

 

[rcwitness]

Scripture tells of two things that are THE Truth
Christ and the Word

the truthfullness of all statements are to be judge again Jesus and the Word of God:

by definition: anything that contracts the Word of God must be in error.

This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced **the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters **of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves
St. Augustine

This is not answering the question at all.

 

[Peter_J]

alwayswill, I think perhaps our most fundamental disagreement is about the word “infallibility”.

A person (or group) enjoy infallibility if, at the time in question, they are incapable of (i.e. protected against) falling into error.

 

[rcwitness]

I’m thinking that most Catholics would not agree that God is bound by (or to) Canon Law degrees and pronouncements

It is not mere Canon Law, it is His own Word.
Matt. 16
And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matt. 18
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

 

[alwayswill]

Who’s Jimmy Akin?

this guy:
jimmyakin.com/2005/02/foot_washing.html
"Taken simply as a factural description, this is true. It has become customary in many places in the U.S. to invite women to participate in the rite, and for the reasons stated.

**Unfortuantely, that doesn’t make it legally permitted to do so. **
The Code of Canon Law requires:

Can.  846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority [SOURCE].

Since no legislative action has been taken allowing local variation in regard to this matter, it appears that the use of women and children in the rite of footwashing is at variance with Church law."

 

[Memaw]

I have no idea why you think the “Protestant popes” think they are infallible (incapable of error).

After decades of study and teaching Reformed Theology, I have never heard of such a thing.
Do you know what a strawman argument is?

I follow the infallible (incapable of error) and inerrant (contains no error) teachings of Scripture (graphe theopneustos: God breathed writings)

And where did you get those infallible and inerrant teachings of Sacred Scripture but from the Infallible Catholic Church. Maybe a little study of Catholic Church History and of the Early Church Fathers will help you. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

It is not mere Canon Law, it is His own Word.
Matt. 16
And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matt. 18
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

AMEN!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[alwayswill]

alwayswill, I think perhaps our most fundamental disagreement is about the word “infallibility”.

A person (or group) enjoy infallibility if, at the time in question, they are incapable of (i.e. protected against) falling into error.

I completely agree with that definition:
I don’t think i ever gave any indication that I do not

 

[Peter_J]

Who’s Jimmy Akin?

All right, all right. You don’t have to answer that question. I just find it a little bit funny that usually when I have heard that name mentioned it has been by a Protestant (and almost always posting on a website to boot).

Edit: Oops, I guess you already answered it.

 

[Peter_J]

I completely agree with that definition:
I don’t think i ever gave any indication that I do not

 

[alwayswill]

It is not mere Canon Law, it is His own Word.
Matt. 16
And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matt. 18
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

maybe this should go to another forum and I may be mistaken:

I don’t think the Catholic church considers Canon Law to be either the word of God or infallible… see post 113 for an example
Can other Catholics weigh in?

 

[rcwitness]

maybe this should go to another forum and I may be mistaken:

I don’t think the Catholic church considers Canon Law to be either the word of God or infallible… see post 113 for an example
Can other Catholics weigh in?

Don’t believe I said it is…

 

[alwayswill]

Don’t believe I said it is…

I must be misunderstanding this:
QUOTE=rcwitness;
"**Infallibility means **
that what is weighed, judged, pronounced and decreed,
**within Canon Law, **
is bound in Heaven and on Earth.
It is not merely man (flesh and blood) speaking, but the Lord. "

Can you clarify for me?