Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[FathersKnowBest]

Oral Tradition lasts longer than 100 years as you must know.

So again I ask, do we have any words that we know are of Jesus not found in our New Testament books?

It’s really okay to say “No, we have no such words” and explain why.

We have three sentences, even IN the enscripturated NT. All the rest are translations into Greek.

So, if what you want is exact quotes, you won’t find them, either in the Bible or in the OTHER part of sacred Tradition.

 

[Contarini]

Let’s connect the dots here, dronald. Where do you think the Church erred in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT?

If you don’t think she erred (and I’m sure you don’t), and you believe (and I’m sure you do) that the Church just didn’t “happen to get it right”, but was guided by the HS, then…

connect the dots…

this necessarily means…

you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility.

QED.

There is no other logical explanation for this. You just have to connect the dots.

I know we’ve been over this before, but yet again:

“Infallible” doesn’t just mean “right.” It means “can’t be/couldn’t have been wrong.”

It is logically coherent to argue that the early Church could have gotten the canon wrong but didn’t.

It is also logically coherent to argue that the Church has been given a charism of infallibility but that it is much more limited than Catholics believe, or just functions differently.

I find this argument about the canon particularly puzzling because of course Protestants do reject the views of Augustine and of the local councils of Rome and Carthage, etc., when it comes to the OT. So how can you argue that they tacitly accept the infallibility of the Church with regard to the canon?

That being said, sola scriptura Protestants don’t have a good account of why they take the NT canon on trust. It just isn’t true to argue that their position implies a belief in infallibility. That overstates the case and thus obscures the very important point that needs to be made.

Edwin

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I find this argument about the canon particularly puzzling because of course Protestants do reject the views of Augustine and of the local councils of Rome and Carthage, etc., when it comes to the OT. So how can you argue that they tacitly accept the infallibility of the Church with regard to the canon?

Because they can’t come up with any other plausible explanation as to why they accept the same 26-book canon as was determined by the Catholic Church.

That being said, sola scriptura Protestants don’t have a good account of why they take the NT canon on trust. It just isn’t true to argue that their position implies a belief in infallibility. That overstates the case and thus obscures the very important point that needs to be made.

What point would that be?

 

[SteveVH]

“Infallible” doesn’t just mean “right.” It means “can’t be/couldn’t have been wrong.”

It is logically coherent to argue that the early Church could have gotten the canon wrong but didn’t.

Don’t mean to butt in, however this line of thought really intrigues me. How is one to determine whether or not the Church got it right? How does one come to the conclusion, even, that the CC got it right this time even if it might not the next? Are you saying that non-Catholic Christians who accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God came to that conclusion on their own and that their determination just happens to agree with the CC? To me, this doesn’t seem logical or even close to realistic.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[Isaiah45_9]

this necessarily means…

you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility.

QED.

There is no other logical explanation for this. You just have to connect the dots.

Not necessarily my dear friend.

Acknowledging that the CC is free from error in receiving the NT does not allow tacit knowledge to all that encompasses infallibility within the context of our definition of infallibility.

Acknowledging one does not equal acknowledging all.

Further, my inability to find error in the declaration of the NT does not equal my understanding and extending infallibility to the CC in regards to the NT. It just means that I trust the CC in what the NT is and is not.

Because I can’t possibly grant infallibility to an area where I don’t know enough to grant error or perfection. I am but granting trust.

 

[PRmerger]

I know we’ve been over this before, but yet again:

“Infallible” doesn’t just mean “right.” It means “can’t be/couldn’t have been wrong.”

Yes. Correct.

It is logically coherent to argue that the early Church could have gotten the canon wrong but didn’t.

And let’s connect the dots here…why do you think the Church didn’t get it wrong?

Was she just lucky?

Was she just really smart about this decision? (Or rather, these decisions, since it was a multitude of councils over a multitude of years which did this).

Orrrr…

was she guided by the Holy Spirit, and under this guidance she was able to discern the 27 book canon of the NT?

Annnddd…

if she was guided by the HS, then how would it be possible for her to be fallible, under this guidance?

It is also logically coherent to argue that the Church has been given a charism of infallibility but that it is much more limited than Catholics believe, or just functions differently.

I would be fine with Protestant folks acknowledging this.

But it’s been reallllyyyyyyy hard to get folks to affirm even that.

I have yet to hear a single Protestant say, “Well, yes. I do believe that men have been given the charism of infallibility.”

Are there any Protestants here willing to say this?

 

[clem456]

If God gave us the New Contract, Jesus would have accomplished his deeds and checked us off his list things to do. “See ya later, good luck and God bless”.
But…
He gave us the New Covenant. We are the covenant people of God. Jesus lives and his covenant lives with us. His saving presence includes those he bled on and breathed on 2000 years ago, plus all people of all time. The Church Jesus started with His breath and blood must be passed on in a living way, because he rose from the dead. It can’t be any other way, or we are all dead in our shoes. Christ is whole and uninterrupted, and his Church is his body, his spouse, and he gifts her with HIMSELF.

Christ is a person, not a book. (and that only enhances Scripture, not detracts, he fills Scripture with his life.)

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Not necessarily my dear friend.

Acknowledging that the CC is free from error in receiving the NT does not allow tacit knowledge to all that encompasses infallibility within the context of our definition of infallibility.

PR didn’t say that.
Not to put words into his mouth, and please, PR correct me if I’m wrong, butI think that by “you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility” PR meant that “you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility at least in this one instance.”

Now, since accepting this charism of infallibility at all, even in a single instance, pretty much obliterates the protestant argument against the charism of infallibility, the only argument left for protestants would be a case of “special pleading” in the instance of the canon vis-à-vis all other pronouncements.

Acknowledging one does not equal acknowledging all.

Yes. But why? Apart from “special pleading” that is.

Further, my inability to find error in the declaration of the NT does not equal my understanding and extending infallibility to the CC in regards to the NT. It just means that I trust the CC in what the NT is and is not.

Trust them … why? Unless guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, there’s no reason to trust that the Church got it right.

Because I can’t possibly grant infallibility to an area where I don’t know enough to grant error or perfection. I am but granting trust.

So, maybe the Church got it right? Maybe we have the proper canon?
The ability to trust the scriptures is directly proportional to, and dependent on, one’s ability to trust the Catholic Church.

 

[clem456]

Infallibility can be hard to understand and I really don’t know how useful it is in this discussion as it tends to refer to specific issues and pronouncements of faith and morals.
But anyway, this is what the Church says about infallibility
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

• The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

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

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, **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.

 

[PRmerger]

PR didn’t say that.

You are absolutely correct, FKB. I absolutely did not say that.

Not to put words into his mouth,

Do you mean: not to put words into -]his/-] her mouth.

I am a she.

and please, PR correct me if I’m wrong, butI think that by “you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility” PR meant that “you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility at least in this one instance.”

Yep.

Jose must have missed all the times I have given this argument and said, “at least, as it applies to the canon of the NT.”

And while I would affirm that this (honest) Protestant who acknowledges that the charism of infallibility exists, “in this one instance”, where “one instance” means “as it applies to the canon of the NT”…

it’s actually over a MULTITUDE of instances. Over centuries. With different men.

It was the Catholic Bishops of the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo who discerned which books those were. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). Source: here.

Now, since accepting this charism of infallibility at all, even in a single instance, pretty much obliterates the protestant argument against the charism of infallibility, the only argument left for protestants would be a case of “special pleading” in the instance of the canon vis-à-vis all other pronouncements.

Yep.

 

[PRmerger]

Trust them … why? Unless guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, there’s no reason to trust that the Church got it right.

When a Protestant acknowledges that it was indeed the Catholic Church which discerned the canon of the NT (and it’s usually done after A LOT of teeth pulling by patient Catholics here), it is ONLY acknowledged with a, “Well, it’s only because the Holy Spirit did not. Not the bishops of the CC.”

That’s fine…

Annnnddd here’s the case where the Protestant hasn’t connected the dots: the Protestant who can’t bring himself to acknowledge that there is such a thing as the charism of infallibility…also can’t quite figure out how to reconcile the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the Church without calling it an infallible exercise of the HS.

Connecting the dots…

It’s what makes the Picture Whole. It’s what makes you Catholic.

http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/church.jpg

The ability to trust the scriptures is directly proportional to, and dependent on, one’s ability to trust the Catholic Church.

 

[Contarini]

And let’s connect the dots here…why do you think the Church didn’t get it wrong?

I think that’s a good question to press on Protestants in this instance, particularly given what most of them think about the deutero-canonicals and given the serious issues raised by ancient and modern scholars about some of the NT books (2 Peter in particular in terms of modern scholarship, but it was also questioned in ancient times).

was she guided by the Holy Spirit, and under this guidance she was able to discern the 27 book canon of the NT?

Annnddd…

if she was guided by the HS, then how would it be possible for her to be fallible, under this guidance?

But this is an ex post facto judgment. The way we normally speak about guidance by the Holy Spirit is that we say that certain decisions were guided, while others that followed the same process weren’t, not by any failure of the Spirit but because the people didn’t listen to the Spirit in the other case. Protestants believe that the Church listened to the voice of the Spirit in the case of the NT canon, while perhaps not doing such a great job of listening in other areas (particularly in later centuries). Now one can argue that this is improbable, perhaps, or that a more robust account is needed of why Protestants are so sure the Church got this one thing right. But there’s no logical contradiction in the position.

I would be fine with Protestant folks acknowledging this.

But it’s been reallllyyyyyyy hard to get folks to affirm even that.

I have yet to hear a single Protestant say, “Well, yes. I do believe that men have been given the charism of infallibility.”

Are there any Protestants here willing to say this?

I agree that this second option is not one Protestants usually take. I’m just saying that its logically possible. (It is the position to which my own theological opinions would tend to incline me. I suppose it’s arguably the Orthodox position, and that of many high-church Anglicans.)

Edwin

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But this is an ex post facto judgment.

So what?
Judging that Jesus was the Christ was also, for nearly all people, ex-post facto.

The way we normally speak about guidance by the Holy Spirit is that we say that certain decisions were guided, while others that followed the same process weren’t, not by any failure of the Spirit but because the people didn’t listen to the Spirit in the other case.

Then how do you know the Church got it right?

Protestants believe that the Church listened to the voice of the Spirit in the case of the NT canon, while perhaps not doing such a great job of listening in other areas (particularly in later centuries). Now one can argue that this is improbable, perhaps, or that a more robust account is needed of why Protestants are so sure the Church got this one thing right. But there’s no logical contradiction in the position.

There certainly is a logical contradiction in KNOWING that the Church got it right and not assuming infallibility, at least in this instance.

I agree that this second option is not one Protestants usually take. I’m just saying that its logically possible. (It is the position to which my own theological opinions would tend to incline me. I suppose it’s arguably the Orthodox position, and that of many high-church Anglicans.)

Edwin

 

[Isaiah45_9]

PR didn’t say that.
Not to put words into his mouth, and please, PR correct me if I’m wrong, butI think that by “you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility” PR meant that “you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility at least in this one instance.”

Now, since accepting this charism of infallibility at all, even in a single instance, pretty much obliterates the protestant argument against the charism of infallibility, the only argument left for protestants would be a case of “special pleading” in the instance of the canon vis-à-vis all other pronouncements.

Yes. But why? Apart from “special pleading” that is.

Trust them … why? Unless guided and protected by the Holy Spirit, there’s no reason to trust that the Church got it right.

So, maybe the Church got it right? Maybe we have the proper canon?
The ability to trust the scriptures is directly proportional to, and dependent on, one’s ability to trust the Catholic Church.

You are absolutely correct, FKB. I absolutely did not say that.

Do you mean: not to put words into -]his/-] her mouth.

I am a she.

Yep.

Jose must have missed all the times I have given this argument and said, “at least, as it applies to the canon of the NT.”

And while I would affirm that this (honest) Protestant who acknowledges that the charism of infallibility exists, “in this one instance”, where “one instance” means “as it applies to the canon of the NT”…

it’s actually over a MULTITUDE of instances. Over centuries. With different men.

It was the Catholic Bishops of the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo who discerned which books those were. At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). Source: here.

Yep.

Hmm, I think you are both missing my point.

My lack of knowledge to determine whether or not the selection of the 27 books of the NT are in error - does not qualify me to establish that the Church is infallible in such declaration.

Here’s what you are presenting:

I don’t know or can’t find error in the declaration of the 27 books of the NT.

Therefore,

The declaration is infallible.

How does my inability to find error - grant infallibility?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hmm, I think you are both missing my point.

My lack of knowledge to determine whether or not the selection of the 27 books of the NT are in error - does not qualify me to establish that the Church is infallible in such declaration.

Here’s what you are presenting:

I don’t know or can’t find error in the declaration of the 27 books of the NT.

Therefore,

The declaration is infallible.

How does my inability to find error - grant infallibility?

The starting assumption is that the protestant knows for certain that the NT books the Church included and only those are the inspired books.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm, I think you are both missing my point.

My lack of knowledge to determine whether or not the selection of the 27 books of the NT are in error - does not qualify me to establish that the Church is infallible in such declaration.

Here’s what you are presenting:

I don’t know or can’t find error in the declaration of the 27 books of the NT.

Therefore,

The declaration is infallible.

How does my inability to find error - grant infallibility?

It’s not your inability to find error.

It’s the fact that you believe that the Church did this without error.

If you believe that the Church did this, and that the Holy Spirit was the source of this…then the logical conclusion is…

what?

Also, it appears as if you’re switching your objection. Initially it was, “Just because a Protestant believes the Church was given the charism of infallibility for discerning the canon of the NT doesn’t mean that this Protestant believes that the Church is infallible in all areas.”

 

[PRmerger]

So what?
Judging that Jesus was the Christ was also, for nearly all people, ex-post facto.

Egg-zactly.

 

[punisherthunder]

Of course they don’t know what they’re protesting, but they sure do know what they’re endorsing.

A Protestant mega church opened up here in town complete with a golf driving range, clothing shop, and restaurant all on the church property…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The starting assumption is that the protestant knows for certain that the NT books the Church included and only those are the inspired books.

Negative.

The starting assumption (Which is the wrong place to start with an assumption, anyways) is that the protestant takes for granted the NT books the has used. There has been no unifying protestant council declaring what the NT is. They just rolled with what the Church already had in place. IOW - the protestant accepts the Church’s declaration.

It’s not your inability to find error.

It’s the fact that you believe that the Church did this without error.

No, we are still not on the same page.

I don’t have enough knowledge/authority to determine that the Church declaration of the NT is without error. Neither does 98% of all Christians. Us, average people accept what has been declared by the Church.

If you believe that the Church did this, and that the Holy Spirit was the source of this…then the logical conclusion is…

what?

It means that I believe the Church and that I lack:

1. The inspiration of the Holy Spirit to determine otherwise.
2. The authority to determine otherwise.
3. Proof to determine otherwise.

But to completely agree that the Church is correct would put me in a category where I am able to defend the Church’s declaration by myself. It does not make me competent to say that this is an infallible declaration…

Because?

It would mean that I am declaring that there is no error in the Church’s declaration.

Which brings another question - How do you know there is no error in the Church’s declaration?

My answer would be: Because the Church says so.

That does not make me believe in infallibility for this case.

Also, it appears as if you’re switching your objection. Initially it was, “Just because a Protestant believes the Church was given the charism of infallibility for discerning the canon of the NT doesn’t mean that this Protestant believes that the Church is infallible in all areas.”

I have no need to switch objections.

I have a disagreement with the logic you are presenting.

My question would be:

Has the Catholic Church declared the decree for the Canon of Scriptures to be infallible?

 

[PRmerger]

Negative.

The starting assumption (Which is the wrong place to start with an assumption, anyways) is that the protestant takes for granted the NT books the has used. There has been no unifying protestant council declaring what the NT is. They just rolled with what the Church already had in place. IOW - the protestant accepts the Church’s declaration.

Yep. That seems to be the same thing that FKB was saying.

I don’t have enough knowledge/authority to determine that the Church declaration of the NT is without error. Neither does 98% of all Christians. Us, average people accept what has been declared by the Church.

So you seem to be saying that 98% of Christians don’t really know if the 27 book canon of the NT is correct?

Is that your position, Jose?