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

[Peter_J]

Agreed.
Reuben J; with over 7000 posts
bold added

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

did any Catholic correct Reuben J;?

I don’t read all or even most Catholic posters (I think my brain would explode) but I do read Reuben, and I think he’s had some pretty good points.

In fairness to what you quoted, IIRC it’s pretty similar to what one of the Protestant posters said on infallibility.

 

[Peter_J]

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** ?

If you mean, do you have Akinism, I’d say No. (I don’t even believe that’s a real thing.)

 

[rcwitness]

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

“Infallible Teachings” are not new because they are Taught. They are Apostolic Traditions that are part of Divine Revelation. Infallibility is the act which a person declares them as such, and the body accepts with assent of faith. It is not based on subordination, but trust and reason.

There is not much Tradition, which Scripture doesn’t address to some degree. Prayer to the Saints (in heaven) for their prayers on our behalf, is one that I find little Scripture support. And one that I see as a practice, rather than a matter of doctrine. But the Tradition lies within this practice… namely, that the Saints can hear our prayers, and in turn pray to the Lord on our behalf.

But to ask us to provide you a list of Infallible Teachings, or ask for a specific number of them, is not very practical. I think it’s more practical to ask if such and such tradition has been confirmed in an Infallible manner.

I have already said that I believe that Unam Sanctum was an Infallible Teaching. And the way I understand the controversial statement in it was addressed in post 197. It really isn’t saying more than what Scripture has revealed. We, as Christians, have a duty to observe institutions, even human institutions. But the Church is a much higher law than earthly institutions. What She has delivered (and affirmed through the papacy) is the message of salvation and it’s ministry. Why did you not respond to that post?

Infallibility does NOT mean teaching something new, or apart from the Gospel message, or something that happened from the days of the Apostles. It is the authority to Declare with full faith and authority that this is what the Church of God accepts, believes, embraces, assets to, and defends.

 

[alwayswill]

"…

I have already said that I believe that Unam Sanctum was an Infallible Teaching…
…
Infallibility does NOT mean teaching something new, or apart from the Gospel message, or something that happened from the days of the Apostles…

Which Apostle taught this
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

when Peter stood up on that day on Pentecost and answered the question "what must we do to be saved:
Was there any hint that that he said “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to me”?

was the Apostle John’s salvation dependent upon him being subject to Pope Linus ?

We, as Christians, have a duty to observe institutions, even human institutions.

Was St Paul in submission to Nero and Rome? Was Peter?
Were the the early Christian martyrs to submit to Caesar?

of course not!

The inerrant truth is that it is NOT absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontif:
It never was , it never will be

 

[alwayswill]

I have already said that I believe that Unam Sanctum was an Infallible Teaching…

Dr Carroll at EWTN say it isn’t
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=362993&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
now what?

Jimmy Akin at CAF stays it is
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3447
now what?

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

 

[Peter_J]

Dr Carroll at EWTN say it isn’t
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=362993&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=
now what?

Thank you for proving that we aren’t as monolithic as some people think we are.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for proving that we aren’t as monolithic as some people think we are.

Beware of motleydom.

 

[rcwitness]

Which Apostle taught this
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Not an Apostle, but Jesus.

when Peter stood up on that day on Pentecost and answered the question "what must we do to be saved:
Was there any hint that that he said “it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to me”?

Who did they ask, and who gave them the answer? You are looking at things in the wrong way. Peter is merely the Chief Apostle. He confirms the others. If there is something he confirmed and a believer rejects it, they are rejecting the faith.

was the Apostle John’s salvation dependent upon him being subject to Pope Linus ?

That is a complicated question. One I don’t want to answer immediately. It’s like asking if the Apostle Jesus loved would turn and betray Him. It absolutely demands a specific situation with details of circumstances. What possibly would be a reason for St John to dishonor St. Linus? And what could Linus possibly demand of St John without warrant???

Was St Paul in submission to Nero and Rome? Was Peter?
Were the the early Christian martyrs to submit to Caesar?

of course not!

Of course they were. Have you not read the Acts of the Apostles? Peter and Paul submitted to the authorities unless it meant abandoning their commission and devotion to Jesus.

The inerrant truth is that it is NOT absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontif:
It never was , it never will be

I disagree, because I don’t look at it in the way that you do. I do not see Jesus as a rebel, but an obedient servant. If we have the Spirit of Jesus, we do not rebel against authorities, unless we would be rebelling against God.

 

[Peter_J]

Beware of motleydom.

Wait, aren’t Catholic immune.

 

[GKC]

Wait, aren’t Catholic immune.

I suspect not.

But I am no authority.

 

[rcwitness]

Thank you for proving that we aren’t as monolithic as some people think we are.

Ain’t that the truth. I listen to strong evangelicals. There’s not much to criticize. Definitely more in my own life’s actions.

 

[goout]

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.

Don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[goout]

Regarding Unam Sanctum and any other Church teaching for that matter:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7791254&postcount=2

This falls under the Ordinary Magisterium. To be infallible it must be either Ex Cathedra, which it is not or it must be an established dogma.

The dogma here is that all need to be united to the Church founded upon the Apostle Peter, because salvation comes through the Church. There is no problem there

The problem arises if we try to use this statement to say that those who are not in communion with Peter will not be saved. The statement has to be taken along with other statements about those who are not in communion with Peter.

It’s very dangerous to take one sentence from a 2000 year tradition and make it THE LAW, when in fact there are many statements on the same subject. All of them have to be taken together. There are other statements that explain how someone who is not in communion with Peter can be saved. And there are further statements that describe degrees of communion with Peter. All of them must be taken as a whole.

By itself, this statement is a black and white statement about the Church built upon the Apostle Peter, but it is missing everything else that has been said about that Church and those who are outside of the physical Church or who are in an imperfect communion with the Church.

In simple English. It does not tell the whole teaching of the Church to this day. This whole issue has to be taken biblically, dogmatically, historically, and phenomenonlogically. Catholicism has a biblical and philosophical tradtion. You have to take the whole of it. This statement is part of the whole.

 

[goout]

To do justice to Dr William Carroll, whose name was used for a distortion earlier in the thread, here is the entire exchange:

Unam Sanctam is Infallible Dogma
Question from Traditionalist on 4/4/2001:
Dr. Carroll:

The Papal Bull “Unam Sanctam,” issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII is infallible dogma which must be believed by Catholic faithful.

It’s wording is very clear and precise. It means what it says. Vatican I infallibly declared that dogma must always be understood in it’s original sence. It precluded specifically the “specious pretext of a more scientific or profound understanding” as those who distort Cardinal Newman’s theory of doctrinal development would wish to give it.

One who is not in the Catholic Church cannot be saved. This is supported by the much demonized “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (No salvation outside the Church), yet another dogma of the faith.

The universal consessus of popes, saints, and theologians has held to the obvious dictates of Unam Sanctam for the last 700 years. The only exceptions to Unam Sanctam are those who find themselves invincibly ignorant, catechumens, or baptism of desire. Again, these last three exceptions are NOT dogmatic certainties, but only hopeful possibilities.

Only with the onset of the French Revolutionary/Freemasonic philosophies and theologies, and later with the Liberalism, Americanism, and Modernism, did the enemies of the Church begin to make inroads into the solidity of Catholic doctrinal integrity, the solidity of Catholic conviction in these doctrines.

Nevertheless, those who disagree with Unam Sanctam (and the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff to obtain salvation) become either material or formal heretics, and remove themselves (objectively speaking) from the posibility of salvation (though subjective factors MAY mitigate the severity of the Lord’s judgment).

But the fact of the matter is that Unam Sanctam, with all its strictness which is so foreign to our liberalized Catholicism, must be held in the sense with which it was promulgated. Any crackpot theologians asserting that it was not infallible bear the burden of overcoming the entirety of Catholic tradition since at least the time of St. Cyprian in the 4th century (who was the first to make known the truth already implicit in the corpus of Catholic doctrine) that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church.

The new Catechism is not infallible, Unam Sanctam is.

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 4/5/2001:
I’m sorry we disagree about this, but I stand by my previous statements. You have no authority to convict me of heresy. And I do believe that the Catholic Catechism is infallible. In considering Unam sanctam, we do have to consider the audience to which it was directed, and the extent of knowledge of the world at the time it was issued. This is only common sense. - Dr. Carroll

COPYRIGHT 2016

 

[rcwitness]

Regarding Unam Sanctum and any other Church teaching for that matter:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7791254&postcount=2

To do justice to Dr William Carroll, whose name was used for a distortion earlier in the thread, here is the entire exchange:

I believe those resources relate just what I have been saying throughout the thread.

I believe Unam Sanctum to be Infallible (but understood properly is imperative)

I believe the Catechism to be Infallible (yet within it, it deals with practices which are NOT unchangeable).

 

[Peter_J]

To do justice to Dr William Carroll, whose name was used for a distortion earlier in the thread, here is the entire exchange:

What distortion was that?

 

[goout]

The full context of infallibility:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm
some highlights

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
…
Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Note that infallibility is not a human claim to authority, it is a share in Christ’s charism.

Just as an aside, as a newcomer here it seems surprising that not one knowledgeable Catholic poster here referenced the current Church teaching on this issue.
What’s up with that?

 

[goout]

What distortion was that?

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

 

[alwayswill]

To do justice to Dr William Carroll, whose name was used for a distortion earlier in the thread, here is the entire exchange:

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.

where is the distortion?

 

[rcwitness]

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.

where is the distortion?

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.