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

[Peter_J]

Wow there are five billion Protestants? I’m impressed. And maybe a little nervous.

(well, based on the quote “With the Catholic Church, either you believe her teachings or you are a protestant”.)

 

[goout]

I think what is or isn’t considered faithfull in this conversation is a bit relative. Because, theoretically, if “alwayswill” were Catholic he would be in total conformity with church teachings, because he cares deeply about his faith.

If we define faithfull as Joe blow who attends Mass but his faith practice doesnt extend beyond that, then no, you could say pew sitters are not unified in their understanding.

Personally, that is not how i would define faithfull. That is paramount to the guy who buried his talents and handed them to the Lord upon his return.

A good definition of faith is God’s grace to which I respond.

Faith is personal response and adherence to God’s gratuitousness. It is much more than consensus opinion. The truest sign of faith might be docility to Church charisms (like authority) precisely when understanding fails us, or when agreement is hard to attain.

Faith is giving my adherence to the person of Jesus Christ and the Body he established when the “sayings are hard”.

 

[Peter_J]

yes, I admit I am fallible,
yes, I admit that my stance against the Catholic faith could be wrong,
yes, I admit that the Catholic Church may be correctly interpreting Scripture
yes, I admit that the Catholic Church may have infallible Teaching…

This and earlier posts makes me think of Benny Hinn’s, “I know, that I know, that I know”.

I guess he had some doubts or he would have said “I know, that I know, that I know, that I know”.



But anyhow, I read that a couple years before I read Scott Hahn’s “fallible list of infallible books” piece.

 

[alwayswill]

I think what is or isn’t considered faithfull in this conversation is a bit relative. Because, theoretically, if “alwayswill” were Catholic he would be in total conformity with church teachings, because he cares deeply about his faith.

If we define faithfull as Joe blow who attends Mass but his faith practice doesnt extend beyond that, then no, you could say pew sitters are not unified in their understanding.

Personally, that is not how i would define faithfull. That is paramount to the guy who buried his talents and handed them to the Lord upon his return.

instead of using the Joe Blow example; what if we use Priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals who sincerely believe their interpretations are correct yet are in disagreement with other Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals.

The interpretation of Amoris Laetitia would be one example.

 

[rcwitness]

instead of using the Joe Blow example; what if we use Priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals who sincerely believe their interpretations are correct yet are in disagreement with other Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals.

The interpretation of Amoris Laetitia would be one example.

We aren’t the Magisterium to make that judgment.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

instead of using the Joe Blow example; what if we use Priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals who sincerely believe their interpretations are correct yet are in disagreement with other Priests, Bishops, and Cardinals.

The interpretation of Amoris Laetitia would be one example.

Oh sure, we have the same internal squabbles you guys have. Thankfully there is a visible, final, objective authority to clear things up if need be.

Since the Church is living and times and circumstances change, it will always be a struggle to be absolutely certain we are all correctly understanding what the Church actually teaches/permits.

But to try and equate that with the divisions within protestantism who sometimes split over what the color the draperies are supposed to be, seems to be quite a stretch.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

We aren’t the Magisterium to make that judgment.

Thank God we have one

 

[alwayswill]

We aren’t the Magisterium to make that judgment.

???
I’m not asking for a judgement on what is or is not the correct interpretation.

I asking for an acknowledgment that even among faithful Catholic leaders (not a Joe Blow pew potato) there is disagreement with other faithful Catholic leaders over the meaning and interpretation of Church teachings.

Or is this something that can not be acknowledged?

 

[Lenten_ashes]

A good definition of faith is God’s grace to which I respond.

Faith is personal response and adherence to God’s gratuitousness. It is much more than consensus opinion. The truest sign of faith might be docility to Church charisms (like authority) precisely when understanding fails us, or when agreement is hard to attain.

Faith is giving my adherence to the person of Jesus Christ and the Body he established when the “sayings are hard”.

 

[goout]

???
I’m not asking for a judgement on what is or is not the correct interpretation.

I asking for an acknowledgment that even among faithful Catholic leaders (not a Joe Blow pew potato) there is disagreement with other faithful Catholic leaders over the meaning and interpretation of Church teachings.

Or is this something that can not be acknowledged?

Of course people disagree about things.
It seems to me you are now asking a slightly different question.

 

[alwayswill]

Oh sure, we have the same internal squabbles you guys have. Thankfully there is a visible, final, objective authority to clear things up if need be.

Since the Church is living and times and circumstances change, it will always be a struggle to be absolutely certain we are all correctly understanding what the Church actually teaches/permits.

But to try and equate that with the divisions within protestantism who sometimes split over what the color the draperies are supposed to be, seems to be quite a stretch.

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

 

[alwayswill]

Of course people disagree about things.
It seems to me you are now asking a slightly different question.

check my posts 38,40,139,145,149
it the same point I have been making all along:

The infallible authority in Catholicism has not produced unity of belief among the faithful member or leaders

The infallible authority in Protestantism has not produced unity of belief among the faithful member or leaders

 

[MaryT777]

The denial is kind of funny to me in the context of my post. It may scandalize you to hear that so I will not pursue this. To us there are hundreds, if not more, popes out there with their own infallible teachings except that they do not use such title or word. Too Catholic.

It is of course your choice to follow uninfallible teachings, I mean his followers, not you necessarily.

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.

 

[rcwitness]

???
I’m not asking for a judgement on what is or is not the correct interpretation.

I asking for an acknowledgment that even among faithful Catholic leaders (not a Joe Blow pew potato) there is disagreement with other faithful Catholic leaders over the meaning and interpretation of Church teachings.

Or is this something that can not be acknowledged?

Again, there are degrees of understanding an interpretation. What is problematic, with Protestantism, is that they don’t care if they are interpreting something which goes against the Church interpretation. Catholics who are trying to discern a proper understanding of a Teaching have the intention of following orthodox Catholicism.

But even so, most of these disagreements do not carry the consequence of losing salvation. Neither is the genuine Christian believer, who was Baptized and raised in a non-Catholic community going to be deprived of salvation. The Church acknowledges this.

We are getting off the OP topic, and I was glad to hear that you do not consider your interpretations infallible, and that you acknowledge (at least) that the Catholic Church may in fact correctly interpret Scripture.

 

[rcwitness]

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.

 

[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.

I’ve known some Catholics who believe it was an infallible statement. They have a right to their opinion, but it doesn’t change anything.

then at this point the questions becomes;
what teaching of the Catholic Church are actually infallible?

 

[rcwitness]

then at this point the questions becomes;
what teaching of the Catholic Church are actually infallible?

The Catechism. But remember, the Church has the gift (ability to teach infallibly) of Infallibility. The teachings are then inerrant.

 

[goout]

check my posts 38,40,139,145,149
it the same point I have been making all along:

The infallible authority in Catholicism has not produced unity of belief among the faithful member or leaders

The infallible authority in Protestantism has not produced unity of belief among the faithful member or leaders

And so? You are going in circles.
No one disputes that there are disputes. It’s not necessarily the point of unity to stifle disagreement on interpretations of scripture, or disciplines, or doctrines. It’s good to have agreement and we work towards it, but, the Church has a human element.
The unity of faith and belief is not locked in the written word and in ideas.

The unity of belief is personal. Or more accurately, incarnational.
In the Incarnation, God gives us himself to adhere to, not just a book.
(this is the seemingly eternal misunderstanding that protestants end up against)

If I misunderstand or disagree with a Church doctrine, I still owe my faith and trust to Christ, through the Church. We are united to one another personally.

If not, what was the point of Christ coming “down” here???

 

[alwayswill]

The Catechism. But remember, the Church has the gift (ability to teach infallibly) of Infallibility. The teachings are then inerrant.

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.

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

“How about everything contained in the Catechism… is that all infallible teaching of the Church?
Nope”
“Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively.”
jimmyakin.com/2005/05/noninfallible_t.html

---

"Should the Catechism be viewed as an infallible exposition or perfectible set of faith guidelines?

Hi Anonymous,
It should be regarded as neither of the choices you gave.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains infallible doctrine and all the basic teachings, some that have been defined and some that have not, that are part of the ordinary universal and extraordinary Magisterium

askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2007_11NOV/2007NovHowAuthoritativeIsTheCatechism.cfm

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.

 

[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.

Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994 an ** infallible** doctrine or not?
Do you know?

"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

Just in this thread I find
Some Catholics say Unam sanctam from 1302 is infallible
some say it is not
some say it doesn’t matter
some say the interpretation of Unam sanctam is not infallible

what do you say?