Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[PRmerger]

You say this a lot to Protestants, myself included. It’s because we’re a lot alike.

Sure. Except for where you’ve divorced yourself from the kerygma.

Just like Muslims and Christians are a lot alike.

And just like Christians and atheists are a lot alike.

Except for where the Muslims and atheists have divorced themselves from the Truth.

 

[steve_b]

Depends what you mean by ‘Church’. And ‘know’, I suppose.

While this is not addressed to me, I can only answer how I use the word. It’s in a very restricted sense.

(All emphasis mine)

“**I **will build MY Church…” Matthew 16:18

It’s the one Jesus builds on Peter and remains that way. There is only one Church that qualifies.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As a Catholic in an area with many non-Catholic’s I often hear that Martin Luther was a great man that saved the church through reformation. However, when the question is posed about the “need” for Martin Luther’s protest I hear explanations like… “Because the Catholic Church was corrupt” or “the church lost its authority”, et. Al. What I don’t understand, and my question is if the issue was corruption why change the dogma? If the issue was loss of authority, whether through corruption or some other reason, how do they explain Matthew 16:18. Would that not mean the church fell due to evil (“the gates of hell”)? If it did not fall then the teachings of the church were still sound, so why did Martin Luther (with no authority if his own) decide it truthful and appropriate to change teaching? If it did fall, how could that be, as it runs contrary to Jesus’s own words, which is “truth”?

The idea behind the Reformation, maybe best understood by Luther’s statements at the Diet of Worms, is that the corruption of the church flows from claims of infallibility–so it’s that particular doctrine (maybe undeclared or “underdeclared” at the time) that needed changing. If you think the church errs at times, then you’re with Luther.

I don’t believe any human is infallible, but rather that infallibility is an attribute reserved to God alone. For me, to claim otherwise would be to claim equality with God regarding this particular attribute. I see this as a violation of the first commandment and believe that such notions are essentially corruptive.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe any human is infallible, but rather that infallibility is an attribute reserved to God alone.

Then can you tell me where the error lies in this encyclical:

usccb.org/bible/1peter/1

 

[Novocastrian]

Then can you tell me where the error lies in this encyclical:

usccb.org/bible/1peter/1

Nice try, but it’s a perfectly coherent theological response to say that any charism of infallibility related to the Biblical text is an attribute proper to the inspiring Holy Ghost rather than the inspired human author/scribe.

 

[PRmerger]

Nice try, but it’s a perfectly coherent theological response to say that any charism of infallibility related to the Biblical text is an attribute proper to the inspiring Holy Ghost rather than the inspired human author/scribe.

Yep.

That’s pretty much the Catholic definition of infallibility.

That’s why your position is so incoherent.

You say, “Men cannot be infallible!”

Yet you believe that men have been given the charism of infallibility.

Incoherent.

Just say this, Novo, and you can connect the dots to make a coherent picture:
“It’s a perfectly coherent theological response to say that any charism of infallibility is an attribute proper to the inspiring Holy Ghost rather than the inspired human author/scribe.”

Then you will be able to articulate the Catholic position of infallibility.

 

[clem456]

The idea behind the Reformation, maybe best understood by Luther’s statements at the Diet of Worms, is that the corruption of the church flows from claims of infallibility–so it’s that particular doctrine (maybe undeclared or “underdeclared” at the time) that needed changing. If you think the church errs at times, then you’re with Luther.

I don’t believe any human is infallible, but rather that infallibility is an attribute reserved to God alone. For me, to claim otherwise would be to claim equality with God regarding this particular attribute. I see this as a violation of the first commandment and believe that such notions are essentially corruptive.

Right. Christ gives the Church a share in his infallibility. It is a charism.
I find it interesting that we can believe that Christ took human nature, born helpless in a womb, lived, suffered, died as fully human as the rest of us…
BUT…
at the same time some believe he could not have possibly shared himself fully with his Church. The same humanity that he allowed to give birth to him and drive nails through his hands is not given his continuing guidance?
Honestly, that is not a consistent position.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Then can you tell me where the error lies in this encyclical:

usccb.org/bible/1peter/1

The ability to make make correct or incorrect statements doesn’t make someone infallible–that’s a common non sequitur. Claiming “2+3=5” doesn’t make me infallible.

It seems to me there is a great deal of Catholic confusion regarding the difference between inerrancy and infallibility (e.g. see CCC 880 and following). One speaks of statements and assertions as either correct or incorrect, in error or not in error in our human judgment and estimation. The Bible, as a product of human activity, contains errors of various sorts in terms of historical fact, science, and errors resulting from the inability of humans to copy something perfectly over and over–to say nothing about how we as readers might misunderstand the words of the Bible, particularly when reading it in translation.

Only beings with agency can be fallible or infallible. Words have no agency of their own.

 

[PRmerger]

The ability to make make correct or incorrect statements doesn’t make someone infallible–that’s a common non sequitur. Claiming “2+3=5” doesn’t make me infallible.

It seems to me there is a great deal of Catholic confusion regarding the difference between inerrancy and infallibility (e.g. see CCC 880 and following). One speaks of statements and assertions as either correct or incorrect, in error or not in error in our human judgment and estimation. The Bible, as a product of human activity, contains errors of various sorts in terms of historical fact, science, and errors resulting from the inability of humans to copy something perfectly over and over–to say nothing about how we as readers might misunderstand the words of the Bible, particularly when reading it in translation.

Only beings with agency can be fallible or infallible. Words have no agency of their own.

Just so we’re clear: you do not believe that Peter was infallible here:

usccb.org/bible/1peter/1
usccb.org/bible/1peter/2

et al

This is a straightforward question, requiring a simple answer.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Right. Christ gives the Church a share in his infallibility. It is a charism.
I find it interesting that we can believe that Christ took human nature, born helpless in a womb, lived, suffered, died as fully human as the rest of us…
BUT…
at the same time some believe he could not have possibly shared himself fully with his Church. The same humanity that he allowed to give birth to him and drive nails through his hands is not given his continuing guidance?
Honestly, that is not a consistent position.

I think history and experience shows that no human has gained or been given the attribute of infallibility. Historic Christianity never claimed that certain people, at least in this life, are given the charism of infallibility; we all have the capacity and potential to err–that’s what it means to be human.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Just so we’re clear: you do not believe that Peter was infallible here:

usccb.org/bible/1peter/1
usccb.org/bible/1peter/2

et al

This is a straightforward question, requiring a simple answer.

No, Peter was never infallible; he made plenty of errors. You can’t be infallible “here” and not “there.” Infallibility is the capacity to err–we all have it–it’s always there.

 

[PRmerger]

Only beings with agency can be fallible or infallible. Words have no agency of their own.

You are correct here. Very Catholic, this.

So just to be clear: you do not believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were infallible when they wrote their texts?

Simple question.

Simple answer ought to be forthcoming.

 

[PRmerger]

No, Peter was never infallible; he made plenty of errors. You can’t be infallible “here” and not “there.” Infallibility is the capacity to err–we all have it–it’s always there.

Well, see, that’s your problem. You are confusing impeccability with infallibility.

You believe that when we say that Peter’s successor has been given the charism of infallibility, that it means he is incapable of being wrong, ever. That’s impeccability.

That is not a correct articulation of Catholic teaching on infallibility.

Peter’s successor is certainly capable of making mistakes.

He is simply given the charism of infallibility when he is articulating a teaching on faith and morals.

Just like Peter.

Unless you can tell us that you believe that Peter wrote something incorrectly in his encyclicals, then the LOGICAL and COHERENT position is that you believe that Peter was indeed infallible.

Otherwise, please limn where he erred in his encyclicals.

 

[Novocastrian]

Yep.

That’s pretty much the Catholic definition of infallibility.

That’s why your position is so incoherent.

You say, “Men cannot be infallible!”

Yet you believe that men have been given the charism of infallibility.

Incoherent.

Just say this, Novo, and you can connect the dots to make a coherent picture:
“It’s a perfectly coherent theological response to say that any charism of infallibility is an attribute proper to the inspiring Holy Ghost rather than the inspired human author/scribe.”

Then you will be able to articulate the Catholic position of infallibility.

(1) Assuming you’re right, someone who is willing to accept that definition of infallibility isn’t necessarily obliged to attribute it to an individual (i.e. the Pope) or a group (i.e. the Roman Catholic episcopate). It would be a concession of possibility.

(2) You’re not right. What I’ve said thus far doesn’t imply the infallibility of any given man. It implies the possible (though not necessarily acutal) infallibility of inspired texts. This is the key difference. I’m not talking about authorial infallibility here; I’m talking about the infallibility of a given text-in-itself.

 

[PRmerger]

I think history and experience shows that no human has gained or been given the attribute of infallibility.

Then you are in no position to be an evangelist for Christianity.

You cannot be assured that Christ has risen. You cannot be assured that Christ atoned for our sins. You cannot proclaim that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Because, the texts from which you have distilled these beliefs may be wrong.

That’s quite a tenuous position to embrace, Dave.

 

[Novocastrian]

Then you are in no position to be an evangelist for Christianity.

You cannot be assured that Christ has risen. You cannot be assured that Christ atoned for our sins. You cannot proclaim that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Because, the texts from which you have distilled these beliefs may be wrong.

That’s quite a tenuous position to embrace, Dave.

The problem with infallibility claims is that they all eventually hit a brick wall, even if it’s the subjective mind of the listener. One can always (fallibly!) ask whether and how one knows (fallibly?) that a given text/person/body is infallible. If what you require is complete epistemological certainty, then you just can’t have it.

 

[PRmerger]

(1) Assuming you’re right, someone who is willing to accept that definition of infallibility isn’t necessarily obliged to attribute it to an individual (i.e. the Pope) or a group (i.e. the Roman Catholic episcopate). It would be a concession of possibility.

Excellent.

It’s a step in the right direction.

(2) You’re not right. What I’ve said thus far doesn’t imply the infallibility of any given man. It implies the possible (though not necessarily acutal) infallibility of inspired texts. This is the key difference. I’m not talking about authorial infallibility here; I’m talking about the infallibility of a given text-in-itself.

Then you will be a weak and unconvincing evangelist.

All the Muslim has to do is say: well, you don’t even believe that the writers of your holy text got it right, so why should I believe in your Christ?

 

[PRmerger]

The problem with infallibility claims is that they all eventually hit a brick wall, even if it’s the subjective mind of the listener. One can always (fallibly!) ask whether and how one knows (fallibly?) that a given text/person/body is infallible. If what you require is complete epistemological certainty, then you just can’t have it.

My fallible judgement is irrelevant to whether the Scriptures are indeed infallible.

It’s like my inability to discern counterfeit money from real money. That doesn’t mean that real money doesn’t exist.

 

[Novocastrian]

My fallible judgement is irrelevant to whether the Scriptures are indeed infallible.

It’s like my inability to discern counterfeit money from real money. That doesn’t mean that real money doesn’t exist.

I agree. But your point was about weakness in apologetics, so it stands. If infallibility is required for strong apologetics, I can reply that your fallible testimony to the infallibility of Scripture/the Pope/the Church is worthless. After all, if you might be wrong, why should I listen to you?

 

[steve_b]

The idea behind the Reformation, maybe best understood by Luther’s statements at the Diet of Worms, is that the corruption of the church flows from claims of infallibility–so it’s that particular doctrine (maybe undeclared or “underdeclared” at the time) that needed changing. If you think the church errs at times, then you’re with Luther.

I don’t believe any human is infallible, but rather that infallibility is an attribute reserved to God alone. For me, to claim otherwise would be to claim equality with God regarding this particular attribute. I see this as a violation of the first commandment and believe that such notions are essentially corruptive.

I have a different take on it…obviously

• Re: corruption in the Church, let’s not forget Luther himself, he was no saint. He was given a chance to correct his errors but wouldn’t. So he piled error on top of error, was given warnings by the Church and after 9 months of no answer from Luther, he was excommunicated, as were all his followers…Re: infallibility, that is his attempt to discredit the authority of the Church getting matters right, on faith and morals when that charism is employed. But one has to ask, where did Luther get his authority to removed 7 books from the canon of scripture and put those books in the apocrypha of his bible? Look at His quote end of page.

When Jesus institutes His Church on Peter, He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven to do what? Matthew 16:19 . That’s huge authority. And not even the gates of hell will prevail against the Church Our Lord builds on Peter. There’s no better gurantee of success.

15 years after Luther was excommunicated, he said this

"We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).

That’s from the Father of Protestantism
.