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

[alwayswill]

The Catechism is “free from errors in faith and morals” and a “sure norm”. But some things deal with practices that may change, like priestly celebacy (I believe).
And it doesn’t matter if some Catholics don’t have a good relationship with their pastor and search the Teachings and Scripture. I am sure there are plenty of Protestants who do not know the Scriptures well at all.

Free from errors is to inerrant
incapable of error is to be infallible

my 30000 lines of computer scripts may be free of errors
my scripting is not infallible

 

[alwayswill]

:banghead:
You don’t realize that you are pulling your quote** from the objection** !!!
This is frustrating. Pardon my impatience, but don’t you think you should know the material you are debating?
Here is Dr Caroll’s answer to the question (objection) you are quoting.

So round we go, and Fulton Sheen’s maximum is proved true, that aren’t probably 8 people who object to the Catholic Church **and **actually know what they are objecting to.

If I call CAF’s own Jimmy Akin and ask if Unam Sanctam is infallible?

Is this his answer?
"One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull** is the following infallible pronouncement**: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”
…
by James Akin

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

At what point can you concede that faithful and knowledgeable Catholics DISAGREE on what is and is not an infallible teaching or declaration.

 

[MaryT777]

If I call CAF’s own Jimmy Akin and ask if Unam Sanctam is infallible?

Is this his answer?
"One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull** is the following infallible pronouncement**: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”
…
by James Akin

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

At what point can you concede that faithful and knowledgeable Catholics DISAGREE on what is and is not an infallible teaching or declaration.

Always, 4

I must say I have never known anyone to be so interested in Catholic infallibility!~

Would you agree that although Luther described Papal infallibility as a doctrine of the devil or some such words, he put himself up as an infallible teacher?. There are Luther’s SMALL Catechism which bears his name and Lutherans who confirm agree to the teachings of this book. Luther’s LARGE Catechism is for more advanced study.
Thus it’s the interpretation of Luther’s of the Bible most Lutherans are abiding by.

Isn’t that infallibility too?

Mary.

 

[alwayswill]

Always, 4

I must say I have never known anyone to be so interested in Catholic infallibility!~

Would you agree that although Luther described Papal infallibility as a doctrine of the devil or some such words, he put himself up as an infallible teacher?. There are Luther’s SMALL Catechism which bears his name and Lutherans who confirm agree to the teachings of this book. Luther’s LARGE Catechism is for more advanced study.
Thus it’s the interpretation of Luther’s of the Bible most Lutherans are abiding by.

Isn’t that infallibility too?

Mary.

nope:

Infallibility means incapable of error: not merely correct

 

[alwayswill]

Always, 4

I must say I have never known anyone to be so interested in Catholic infallibility!~

…

Mary.

Mary;
Earlier you stated:
**“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.”

Then the next question is
shouldn’t you know what the infallible teachings are?
or doesn’t it matter?

Is your view?
“I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible, but in my Church I don’t need to know what teachings are infallible”

 

[MaryT777]

Mary;
Earlier you stated:
**“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.”

Then the next question is
shouldn’t you know what the infallible teachings are?
or doesn’t it matter?

Is your view?
“I can’t imagine being in a denomination/Church that denies its teachings are infallible, but in my Church I don’t need to know what teachings are infallible”

**What teachings are declared infallible?

Q. What is the church’s foundation for declaring itself to be infallible when the pope speaks ex cathedra and with the entire magisterium supporting him? I understand that the church made this declaration around 1870 A.D., and it seems a little curious to arrive at that conclusion nearly 2,000 years after the life of Christ.
How many teachings on faith and morals have been declared infallible, and what are some of them? And if something has not been defined as infallible, are we free to question and discuss? (Hudson, Wis.)
A. The doctrine of infallibility, while sometimes misunderstood by Catholics and others, is clearly defined by the church’s Code of Canon Law. Canon 749, Section 1, explains that the pope may teach infallibly when he proclaims by definitive act that a certain doctrine of faith or morals is to be believed by the faithful. He must clearly state that he intends to teach that doctrine as infallible and irreformable.
The consensus among theologians is that only twice in the church’s history has the Holy Father by himself exercised this prerogative: in 1854 with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and in 1950 with the Assumption.
But there is a second manner of infallible pronouncements (Canon 749, 2), and this happens when the college of bishops, joined in an ecumenical council, proclaim that a certain truth is to be held by all the faithful. An example would be at Nicaea in 325 A.D., when it was declared that Jesus is “of the same substance” (nature) as God the Father.
The doctrine of infallibility did not suddenly appear in 1870. Rather, it is founded on Christ’s promise to the apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit, who “will guide you to all truth” (Jn 16:13). That secure sense of protection from error on fundamental teachings was part of the early history of the church and is reflected in St. Augustine’s fifth-century statement, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.”
Infallible declarations have been issued only sparsely during the church’s two-millennium history and have usually been formulated in response to particular issues that had been disputed.
**
catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/what-teachings-are-declared-infallible/
But, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains (No. 892), even the ordinary teaching of the bishops, as successors of the apostles and joined with the pope, are to be followed "with religious assent." So where does that leave Catholics as to their freedom “to question and discuss” noninfallible teachings?
The answer seems to depend on the particular teaching – how fundamental it is and how solidly embedded in the history and tradition of the church.
For example, in 1994, when Pope John Paul II said in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the church lacks the authority to ordain women, the word infallible did not appear. But the pontiff did say that this teaching should be “definitively held” and suggested that further debate was pointless. But on the issue of mandatory celibacy for clergy, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the new papal secretary of state, noted recently that this is a matter of church discipline and not dogma, that the early church had married priests and that the matter is therefore open to discussion.
Questions may be sent to Father Kenneth Doyle at askfatherdoyle@gmail.com and 40 Hopewell St., Albany, NY 12208.catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/what-teachings-are-declared-infallible/

 

[alwayswill]

**What teachings are declared infallible?

**Q. What is the church’s foundation for declaring itself to be infallible when the pope speaks ex cathedra and with the entire magisterium supporting him? I understand that the church made this declaration around 1870 A.D., and it seems a little curious to arrive at that conclusion nearly 2,000 years after the life of Christ.
How many teachings on faith and morals have been declared infallible, and what are some of them? And if something has not been defined as infallible, are we free to question and discuss? (Hudson, Wis.)
A. The doctrine of infallibility, while sometimes misunderstood by Catholics and others, is clearly defined by the church’s Code of Canon Law. Canon 749, Section 1, explains that the pope may teach infallibly when he proclaims by definitive act that a certain doctrine of faith or morals is to be believed by the faithful. He must clearly state that he intends to teach that doctrine as infallible and irreformable.
The consensus among theologians is that only twice in the church’s history has the Holy Father by himself exercised this prerogative: in 1854 with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and in 1950 with the Assumption.
But there is a second manner of infallible pronouncements (Canon 749, 2), and this happens when the college of bishops, joined in an ecumenical council, proclaim that a certain truth is to be held by all the faithful. An example would be at Nicaea in 325 A.D., when it was declared that Jesus is “of the same substance” (nature) as God the Father.
The doctrine of infallibility did not suddenly appear in 1870. Rather, it is founded on Christ’s promise to the apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit, who “will guide you to all truth” (Jn 16:13). That secure sense of protection from error on fundamental teachings was part of the early history of the church and is reflected in St. Augustine’s fifth-century statement, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded.”
Infallible declarations have been issued only sparsely during the church’s two-millennium history and have usually been formulated in response to particular issues that had been disputed.
But, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains (No. 892), even the ordinary teaching of the bishops, as successors of the apostles and joined with the pope, are to be followed "with religious assent." So where does that leave Catholics as to their freedom “to question and discuss” noninfallible teachings?
The answer seems to depend on the particular teaching – how fundamental it is and how solidly embedded in the history and tradition of the church.
For example, in 1994, when Pope John Paul II said in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that the church lacks the authority to ordain women, the word infallible did not appear. But the pontiff did say that this teaching should be “definitively held” and suggested that further debate was pointless. But on the issue of mandatory celibacy for clergy, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, the new papal secretary of state, noted recently that this is a matter of church discipline and not dogma, that the early church had married priests and that the matter is therefore open to discussion.
Questions may be sent to Father Kenneth Doyle at askfatherdoyle@gmail.com and 40 Hopewell St., Albany, NY 12208.
*

Great:
now apply that to this statement Unam Sanctam
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be submit to the Roman Pontiff "

infallible or not?

"One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull** is the following infallible pronouncement**: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”
…
by James Akin

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447

now apply that to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994
infallible 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

Those were yes or no questions

 

[MaryT777]

Great:
now apply that to this statement Unam Sanctam
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be submit to the Roman Pontiff "

infallible or not?

“But there is a second manner of infallible pronouncements (Canon 749, 2), and this happens when the college of bishops, joined in an ecumenical council, proclaim that a certain truth is to be held by all the faithful” See article above.

now apply that to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994
infallible or not?

Same as above. The Biblical madate is clear on this one.

Those were yes or no questions

 

[Peter_J]

yes i do know.

My point stands; knowledgeable and faithful Catholics do not know what is and is not an infallible teaching/ declaration…

"In the end, I think we are bound to admit the following two things about Unam Sanctam:

**First, the statement we are discussing fits all the criteria for an infallible statement and should be regarded as such **

Why are we bound to admit that?

 

[Peter_J]

Free from errors is to inerrant
incapable of error is to be infallible

my 30000 lines of computer scripts may be free of errors
my scripting is not infallible

Thank you for posting that AW.

Did anyone tell you that you would make a good Catholic?

 

[Peter_J]

At what point can you concede that faithful and knowledgeable Catholics DISAGREE on what is and is not an infallible teaching or declaration.

Let me alter my earlier question slightly: Was it obvious to first-century Christians which epistles were infallible (by being a part of Sacred Scripture)?

 

[alwayswill]

Why are we bound to admit that?

dunno: that’s the phrasing they used at the unamsanctamcatholicam website:

your not bound to to admit anything from Akin , Voris, Staples, or anyone else for that matter.

the point was and still is that knowledge and faithful Catholics disagree on what is or is not an infallible teaching from their Church

 

[alwayswill]

Let me alter my earlier question slightly: Was it obvious to first-century Christians which epistles were infallible (by being a part of Sacred Scripture)?

yea, pretty early on there was widespread consensus on most of the 27.
there were some pockets of disagreement on a few of the Books, but for the most part it was obvious

 

[alwayswill]

Thank you for posting that AW.

Did anyone tell you that you would make a good Catholic?

considering the source (you) I’ll take that as a compliment…
I study and try to practice presuppositional apologetics…
I am somewhat relentless (sorry) to get to the underlying assumptions of a point of view; get the person to clearly state it, and then hold them to it.

Thank you for the compliment.

 

[goout]

yes i do know.

My point stands; knowledgeable and faithful Catholics do not know what is and is not an infallible teaching/ declaration…

"In the end, I think we are bound to admit the following two things about Unam Sanctam:

**First, the statement we are discussing fits all the criteria for an infallible statement and should be regarded as such **(unlike my college history professor, who laughed at the notion that Unam Sanctam was infallible but held Gaudium et Spes in very high regard).
Eu
Second, we ought to admit that this document does indeed make a universal statement about salvation in general that pertains to all mankind. Perhaps Pope Boniface did not mean to make such a statement, but the simple fact is that he did, and we have to take it as it is and not try to get around the actual wording, for the actual wording is what is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit."
unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/search?q=infallible

You grabbed a miscellaneous objection off the internet and represented it as some sort of authoritative Catholic opinon. :tsktsk::tsktsk:
Your point does not stand. Your are simply grasping for anything that confirms your bias.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Always, 4

I must say I have never known anyone to be so interested in Catholic infallibility!~

Would you agree that although Luther described Papal infallibility as a doctrine of the devil or some such words, he put himself up as an infallible teacher?. There are Luther’s SMALL Catechism which bears his name and Lutherans who confirm agree to the teachings of this book. Luther’s LARGE Catechism is for more advanced study.
Thus it’s the interpretation of Luther’s of the Bible most Lutherans are abiding by.

Isn’t that infallibility too?

Mary.

Trivia

Who said this:

“If Christ had not entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many Churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order that all may be assembled in one unity, that His power be exercised by one man to whom He Himself commits it. He has, however, made this power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury) against it. He says: “The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” as though He said: “They will fight against it but never overcome it,” so it is in this way it is made manifest that this power is in reality from God and not from man. Wherefore, whoever breaks away from this unity and order of the power, let him not boast of great enlightenment and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, ‘for much better is obedience than to be the victims of fools who know not what evil they do”

1.) Pope Francis
2.) Jimmy Akin
3.) Martin Luther

 

[Peter_J]

considering the source (you) I’ll take that as a compliment.

Oops. I guess I’m not trying hard enough.

Heh. No, but seriously I’m glad that you understand what “infallible” means – something that is, at times, hard to get even Catholics to understand.

 

[alwayswill]

You grabbed a miscellaneous objection off the internet and represented it as some sort of authoritative Catholic opinon. :tsktsk::tsktsk:
Your point does not stand. Your are simply grasping for anything that confirms your bias.

how about Jimmy Akin saying Unam Sanctam is infallible?

"“One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull is the following** infallible **pronouncement: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”
…
by James Akin”
what bias do you think I have ?

 

[Peter_J]

You grabbed a miscellaneous objection off the internet and represented it as some sort of authoritative Catholic opinon. :tsktsk::tsktsk:

I, for one, seem to be always criticizing Protestant posters for saying “Such-and-such Catholic blog [or post on a forum] said Blank, so there!”

But, to be fair, I would guess that Catholic posters on Protestant forums do the same thing (in reverse) just as often.

 

[alwayswill]

Oops. I guess I’m not trying hard enough.

Heh. No, but seriously I’m glad that you understand what “infallible” means – something that is, at times, hard to get even Catholics to understand.

Agreed.
Reuben J; with over 7000 posts
bold added

…
For those who do not have the word infallibility in their usage, **it is just the same as about being confidently right. **Otherwise without that, which is pretty much in saying infaiblility anyway, then all that has been done in the last five hundred years is just based on gut feeling that might be wrong.

I think it is perfectly alright for ML to claim infallibility in his teaching or a close equivalent of it. I could not imagine one would give one’s life for something much less. But of course, there’s people that do just that.

Infallible does not mean over confident, arrogant, or presumptuous.

did any Catholic correct Reuben J;?