Do any Protestant denominations claim to be infallible interpreters of Holy Scripture?

[Ani_Ibi]

some Catholics erroneously consider the Catholic Church to be God

This is the first time I have heard of this particular variant on the old strawman of idol worship. Usually it is that we worship statues and Mary and the Saints. But the Church?

Do you think we could trouble you to provide evidence that ‘some’ Catholics erroneously consider the Catholic Church to be God? Which Catholics espouse this belief? Name please. And if ‘some’ Catholics do espouse this belief, then does that change the fact that the Church does not espouse this belief?

By the way, what does the Church teach regarding worshipping the Church?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Contarini:

That’s just plain silly.

That’s just plain your opinion.

Contarini:

Being right is not the same thing as being infallible!

Did we say it was?

Contarini:

The problem I have with infallibility is with the idea that there is a system that ensures that the Church will always be right.

Strawman. Likely you have a problem with it because it is not true. Some Church doctrines are infallible; some are prudential.

Contarini:

Of course every church is going to claim that its doctrines are true. That is not infallibility.

Sure. If something is true but not infallible, then what you are left with is relativism: Something can be true on Wednesday but false on Thursday. Well you can imagine the chaos which might result.

For instance, if on Wednesday a red light means stop and on Thursday a red light means go, then what kind of traffic jam might happen on Friday because Traditionalists went with the Wednesday teaching and Reformers went with the Thursday teaching?

Or maybe some folks just didn’t take their Wednesday of Thursday obligations seriously and missed one or both those teachings completely.

Or some folks interpret red to mean green.

Or something can be true for one class of people and false for another class of people.

Contarini:

There are two related admissions, neither of which Catholics can make:

1. We might have been wrong
2. We might be wrong

Not true. Infallibility is specific. Some doctrines are not infallible; they are prudential.

Contarini:

All Protestants make the first admission, which is why “infallibility” is the wrong term to use even about the most dogmatic Protestants (such as the LCMS).

That’s a very sweeping generalism for which you offer no support.

It also is an unhelpful distinction. A person can quite easily say “I may have been wrong before, but I am right now” until the cows come home and thus never admit to error.

Contarini:

You can say that their doctrinal statements and past decisions are infallible in the sense that they are no longer questioned, but they do not believe that their church per se is infallible.

You are making a distinction which cannot be made. If a pronouncement cannot be in error, then it is infallible. It has nothing to do with whether or not it is questioned.

It may not be questioned because people have gotten smart and would rather go to the ballgame than endure a 4-hour harangue on why they are wrong and why buddy is right. How it works in that setting is that buddy gets to be right – not because he is right – but because people let him get away with his errors.

Contarini:

Furthermore, many–probably most–Protestants today would also make the second admission. They do not claim to be 100% certain about all their doctrinal claims. I certainly am not.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it doesn’t change what they believe. Some make a distinction – another distinction which cannot be justified – that faith is distinct from reason; that what one believes does not have to be reasonable.

Catholics on the other hand believe that truth cannot contradict truthand that faith can never contradict reason.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Just FYI, please do not waste your time and efforts in attempting to bring me back into the Catholic church.

So can we assume you are attempting to bring us into your church?

 

[wanner47]

Yep they are admitting they could be wrong. We are fallible humans after all. It takes humility to admit one doesn’t know everything.

You can see how this affects the church if you just look. Protestant pastors include all the biblical references as they preach, with the people looking up the verses to read for themselves… the presumption is that the Pastor has his heart right, is well learned about such things, but need checks and balances because he is fallible. Catholics hear a few scriptures first and then listen to the homily without looking anything up… the presumption is that the priest is correct.

You’d better call my priest and let him know that by including many, many, MANY scriptural references in his homily EVERY weekend, he’s not doing it right.

Priests are human and therefore are not infallible. I do not assume that my priest is infallible; if I ever hear him say something that I believe is incorrect (which has yet to happen), I would of course do my own independent research to confirm or deny his statements in question.

Can you PROVE that *sola scriptura *is, in fact, a Biblical doctrine? Because I can’t seem to find it in the Bible.

 

[Syele]

You’d better call my priest and let him know that by including many, many, MANY scriptural references in his homily EVERY weekend, he’s not doing it right.

I did not intend to be offensive. I Attended MAss weekly for 6 years and never once heard a Priest read scripture DURING the Homily. If yours does, well, I’d like to hear his Homily sometime.

Priests are human and therefore are not infallible. I do not assume that my priest is infallible; if I ever hear him say something that I believe is incorrect (which has yet to happen), I would of course do my own independent research to confirm or deny his statements in question.

I didn’t say Priests are infallible BUT the attitudes of Parishioners I was around was that the Priest was only explaining to them what was already declared infallible.

Can you PROVE that *sola scriptura *is, in fact, a Biblical doctrine? Because I can’t seem to find it in the Bible.

Where did I state I believe in Sola Scriptura? Why would I want to PROVE it to you?

 

[wanner47]

I did not intend to be offensive. I Attended MAss weekly for 6 years and never once heard a Priest read scripture DURING the Homily. If yours does, well, I’d like to hear his Homily sometime.

Father Cheney uses Scripture in his homilies all the time; he also uses the writings of the early church fathers and documents from the Vatican.

If you’re ever in Fargo, North Dakota, you’re welcome to attend!

I didn’t say Priests are infallible BUT the attitudes of Parishioners I was around was that the Priest was only explaining to them what was already declared infallible.

So you took the alleged attitudes of a few parishoners (did you ASK any of them directly if that’s what they believed?) and assumed the Church as a whole is the same? That’d be like me looking at Jack Chick tracts and assuming *all *Protestants believed what he said. That’s not really fair, is it?

Where did I state I believe in Sola Scriptura? Why would I want to PROVE it to you?

I’ve never met a Christian Protestant who DOESN’T believe in sola scriptura. Furthermore, your post seemed to imply that unless a homily was chock-full of Scripture ONLY, it wasn’t a good homily. Can you elaborate?

 

[exoflare]

To a degree, I would say yes… doesn’t each claim to know which books do or do not qualify as inspired scripture?

 

[Syele]

Father Cheney uses Scripture in his homilies all the time; he also uses the writings of the early church fathers and documents from the Vatican.

If you’re ever in Fargo, North Dakota, you’re welcome to attend!

I doubt I will be there anytime soon, but if I go, I just might attend.

So you took the alleged attitudes of a few parishoners (did you ASK any of them directly if that’s what they believed?) and assumed the Church as a whole is the same? That’d be like me looking at Jack Chick tracts and assuming *all *Protestants believed what he said. That’s not really fair, is it?

Actually I did talk to parishioners. I was there seeking to become a Catholic so I had many questions. People I DID talk to are who gave me that attitude. Most of them were unable to answer the simplest of questions about their faith. I attended a few different parishes during that so I wasn’t seeing only one group.

I’ve never met a Christian Protestant who DOESN’T believe in sola scriptura. Furthermore, your post seemed to imply that unless a homily was chock-full of Scripture ONLY, it wasn’t a good homily. Can you elaborate?

For someone who was just going on about generalizing you seem to dabble in it yourself. I believe the Bible is inerrant. We can however hear from God outside of it though personal revelations as was as derive deeper understanding of the Scriptures through study of other literature.

 

[wanner47]

I doubt I will be there anytime soon, but if I go, I just might attend.

You’d be welcome!

Actually I did talk to parishioners. I was there seeking to become a Catholic so I had many questions. People I DID talk to are who gave me that attitude. Most of them were unable to answer the simplest of questions about their faith. I attended a few different parishes during that so I wasn’t seeing only one group.

It’s unfortunate that the Catholics you spoke with were so poorly catechized. However, as I said, you can’t look at a few Catholics – or even a few parishes – and use them as a representation of the entirely of the Catholic Church.

Did you talk to the priests as well? Did they give you this same “attitude”? Did you inform them of the lack of quality catechisis in their parishes? If not, I’d advise doing so (kindly and gently, of course).

For someone who was just going on about generalizing you seem to dabble in it yourself. I believe the Bible is inerrant. We can however hear from God outside of it though personal revelations as was as derive deeper understanding of the Scriptures through study of other literature.

To my knowledge, one of the key elements of Protestantism is the doctrine of sola scriptura. I used to be Protestant and that was certainly my belief. Is this in error?

Your attitude about Scripture is a very Catholic one, although personal interpretation can only tell us so much. When there are disputes, ultimately we turn to the final Authority designed by Christ to teach and interpret His Word – the Catholic Church.

 

[Syele]

It’s unfortunate that the Catholics you spoke with were so poorly catechized. However, as I said, you can’t look at a few Catholics – or even a few parishes – and use them as a representation of the entirely of the Catholic Church.

Did you talk to the priests as well? Did they give you this same “attitude”? Did you inform them of the lack of quality catechisis in their parishes? If not, I’d advise doing so (kindly and gently, of course).

I do not think ALL Catholics are like that, I’ve met plenty on this forum who were not. All I have personally met however HAVE been that way. Even the Priests. One Priest even informed me that the man who baptized me is going to hell because eh was educated in a protestant seminary and not a Catholic one!

To my knowledge, one of the key elements of Protestantism is the doctrine of sola scriptura. I used to be Protestant and that was certainly my belief. Is this in error?

Your attitude about Scripture is a very Catholic one, although personal interpretation can only tell us so much. When there are disputes, ultimately we turn to the final Authority designed by Christ to teach and interpret His Word – the Catholic Church.

It is in error… to a point. The problem is that while just about all Protestants believe in some form of Sola Scriptura, they do NOT agree on the meaning of the term. While most all Catholics complaining about sola scriptura are talking about a particular definition, the protestants you address it to are varied. If you took a poll of protestants you’d get everything from my beliefs about the Bible to the extreme sola scriptura. you shouldn’t say Protestant = sola Scriptura because what you mean is not the same as what they mean.

My attitude about Scripture is in the middle… between the Catholic one and the extreme sola scriptura definitions.

 

[HailMary]

Why, Henry VIII himself believed in the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, as did Martin Luther–300 years before it became ‘dogma’ as ‘proclaimed’.

Thats awesome. How far have Protestants strayed from their roots?

 

[wanner47]

I do not think ALL Catholics are like that, I’ve met plenty on this forum who were not. All I have personally met however HAVE been that way. Even the Priests. One Priest even informed me that the man who baptized me is going to hell because eh was educated in a protestant seminary and not a Catholic one!

indeed.

It is in error… to a point. The problem is that while just about all Protestants believe in some form of Sola Scriptura, they do NOT agree on the meaning of the term. While most all Catholics complaining about sola scriptura are talking about a particular definition, the protestants you address it to are varied. If you took a poll of protestants you’d get everything from my beliefs about the Bible to the extreme sola scriptura. you shouldn’t say Protestant = sola Scriptura because what you mean is not the same as what they mean.

I see. I had always understood that the doctrine of sola scriptura was used pretty consistently across the board, but I will look into this further.

 

[Contarini]

indeed.

I see. I had always understood that the doctrine of sola scriptura was used pretty consistently across the board, but I will look into this further.

No, it isn’t. That is what apologists on both sides (i.e., certain conservative Catholics and conservative Calvinists) want you to believe, because it makes the issues simpler and allows them to dismiss everyone else (i.e., most Christians) as muddled compromisers or simplistic exaggerators.

There is a standard definition that you can get from Calvinist apologists on the Internet like James White, and that’s what most people on this board are engaging with.

Edwin

 

[wanner47]

No, it isn’t. That is what apologists on both sides (i.e., certain conservative Catholics and conservative Calvinists) want you to believe, because it makes the issues simpler and allows them to dismiss everyone else (i.e., most Christians) as muddled compromisers or simplistic exaggerators.

There is a standard definition that you can get from Calvinist apologists on the Internet like James White, and that’s what most people on this board are engaging with.

Edwin

Is there a site that you know of that compares and contrasts the varying viewpoints of sola scriptura across Protestant denominations?

 

[Contarini]

Is there a site that you know of that compares and contrasts the varying viewpoints of sola scriptura across Protestant denominations?

I don’t think “sola scriptura” is a helpful concept in the first place. If you want to study how the major Protestant traditions understand the authority of Scripture, read their traditional confessional statements: the Book of Concord (particularly the Augsburg Confession) for Lutherans; the Wesminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, etc., for Reformed; and with some caution (since these traditions put less emphasis on confessions and may not accept them as authoritative) the 39 Articles for Anglicans and the abridged 25 Articles for American (“United”) Methodists.

Baptists are tricky because they tend not to like creedal/confessional statements. There is a historic Baptist confession based on the Presbyterian Westminster Confession, but only a minority of Baptists adhere to it. For contemporary Southern Baptists, the “Baptist Faith and Message” is the official doctrinal statement.

Other modern Protestant denominations will have their own statements, and you can usually read them on the Internet.

These things cannot be reduced to simplistic formulas, any more than Catholic doctrines can.

Edwin

 

[mark_a]

**Being “fine” with Catholic teaching is as good as able to accept all its teaching my dear, if you are not OK with the teaching then how would you follow it… **

“Fine”, “able to accept”, “ok” are terms we hear all the time.

For example, being personally opposed to abortion does not stop one from being “able to accept” that it is legal, recommended by medical professionals, funded by the government (in the U.S.), etc.

Similarly, pretending ignorance or avoiding educating one’s self about the Churches teachings concerning artificial birth control, etc. is not the same as putting these teachings into practice.

I am not assuming any of the above about you. I am not putting words in your mouth. Just trying to clarify myself.

If you follow the Catholic teachings, that’s good. You are more Catholic than most Catholics.