Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[Isaiah45_9]

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?

She might be wrong and you might be wrong, so you both might be wrong - in which case I might be wrong too if I believe you are both wrong. If I’m wrong that you are both wrong then you are both right, and if you are wrong that she is wrong, then she is right, and if she’s wrong that you are wrong then you are right. So you are both right, right?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

You’re still subject to the same logical fallacy–that the ability to make a correct statement means that the person making the statement is infallible. Remember that infallibility is about the capacity for error, not whether a statement itself is deemed correct or incorrect. Or, as the old saying goes–“even a broken clock is right twice a day.”

There’s really no way to logically separate impeccability from infallibility since every saying and deed is, in essence, a moral act.

 

[Novocastrian]

She might be wrong and you might be wrong, so you both might be wrong - in which case I might be wrong too if I believe you are both wrong. If I’m wrong that you are both wrong then you are both right, and if you are wrong that she is wrong, then she is right, and if she’s wrong that you are wrong then you are right. So you are both right, right?

We both might be right, and we both might be wrong, but we mightn’t both be right, though we might both be wrong. Right?

 

[Novocastrian]

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?

Nah. We’re not saying that at all.

That I believe person *x *did not err does not entail my believing that person *x *could not err.

IOW, it is possible to believe that person x could, but did not in fact, err.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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
.

Arguing that Luther made errors (simul iustus et peccator, recall) only serves to prove Luther’s point–that no one is above error.

Luther never asserted that everything the Church had said or done was in error–only that Popes and Councils had, historically, erred. To say that certain things are right doesn’t mean everything is right; or that certain things are wrong doesn’t mean everything is wrong.

BTW Luther never removed books from the canon–but you can look at plenty of other threads here on this topic. As for issues of authority, if you’ve been keeping up with your Gospel readings at church, you will have very recently heard that Jesus also gives the same authority (binding and loosing) to all his disciples.

 

[SteveVH]

You’re still subject to the same logical fallacy–that the ability to make a correct statement means that the person making the statement is infallible.

From what I have seen no one is making that argument. Being able to make a correct statement without the charism of infallibility does not then mean that the charism of infallibility does not exist. The issue is not one of making correct statements, but rather one of being prevented from making erroneous statements.

The logical fallacy lies in one holding the belief that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God for no particular reason whatsoever, other than their own judgment.

So Dave, why do you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God? If I was a non-believer, how would you convince me? Convince me that the 27 books of the NT are indeed the word of God and that there is nothing there that is not the word of God. And that there were no books left out that should have been included. Convince me that fallible men came up with this list but that I can, nonetheless, trust their determination.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[steve_b]

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.

Infallibility has been clearly defined. It’s really quite simple

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **

1. • 
     

     • he possesses,
     • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

     • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

     http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
     
     iow
     
     The pope in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defines a doctrine/dogma, concerning faith or morals, to be held by the entire Church.
     
     Note: this charism is NOT on any subject. It must be on faith or morals.
     
     In that way when he fulfills that criteria, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     
     Here’s an example of an infallible statement By SJPII
     
     “Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”
     
     the language he uses makes that an infallible statement.
     
     from
     vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

When you have a chance, read through Augustine’s Against the Academicians–a good text on this topic IMO. We all have to operate on the “truthiness” of things, not on knowing something absolutely.

 

[clem456]

Yes please everyone carefully read the above post #507.
The use of infallibility in the discussion about the inerrancy or inspiration of scripture is pointless. It doesn’t really apply to that particular issue.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Infallibility has been clearly defined. It’s really quite simple

iow

The pope in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defines a doctrine/dogma, concerning faith or morals, to be held by the entire Church.

Note: this charism is NOT on any subject. It must be on faith or morals.

In that way when he fulfills that criteria, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

Here’s an example of an infallible statement By SJPII

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

the language he uses makes that an infallible statement.

from
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

What about the ordinary magisterium? Also infallible? What about the (relatively new) category of “definitive teaching”? Also infallible?

Again, statements are deemed either correct or incorrect. People are either fallible or infallible. To claim that a statement is infallible is illogical–words don’t have agency or the capacity to err (or “words don’t sin” if that helps make the point more clearly) in themselves. The potential for making a moral or logical mistake occurs within human beings.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What about the ordinary magisterium? Also infallible? What about the (relatively new) category of “definitive teaching”? Also infallible?

Again, statements are deemed either correct or incorrect. People are either fallible or infallible. To claim that a statement is infallible is illogical–words don’t have agency or the capacity to err (or “words don’t sin” if that helps make the point more clearly) in themselves. The potential for making a moral or logical mistake occurs within human beings.

You know Dave, I tend to agree with your statement.

There is another category that we are bypassing when it comes to this subject: “De Fide”.

“De Fide” are to be held by the faithful. They are authoritative.

I’ve always find it curious how some statements appear to be classified as infallible when they use open ended words or phrases.

For example, the statement above from SJPII invokes the Grace from the prayer of Christ to Peter and his Faith, he says “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”.

Later, then Cardinal Ratzinger, says in a "RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.*

There is no doubt that this is a “De Fide” deposit. There is no word of infallibility. In fact, I doubt there is a single declaration that explicitly says it is infallible.

To me, it has always been a lay apologists tool…

 

[steve_b]

Arguing that Luther made errors (simul iustus et peccator, recall) only serves to prove Luther’s point–that no one is above error.

No one is arguing impeccability.
D:

Luther never asserted that everything the Church had said or done was in error–only that Popes and Councils had, historically, erred. To say that certain things are right doesn’t mean everything is right; or that certain things are wrong doesn’t mean everything is wrong.

If that was it, no body would have made a big fuss. The issue was bigger than that.

btw, no pope in defining dogma, ever made an error. And you know that when the Church defined papal infallibility, every body with an axe to grind came out of the woodwork to try and find the smoking gun. They couldn’t find it.
D:

BTW Luther never removed books from the canon–but you can look at plenty of other threads here on this topic.

Luther did NOT consider the apocrypha as scripture.

By taking 7 OT books from the canon and placing them in the apocrypha, THAT is removing books from scripture.

Once books from scripture get relegated to apocryphal status, they no longer have status. They can be deleted altogether, because protestants don’t consider the apocrypha scripture, and if one can’t make doctrinal points using them, why even waste space carrying them. And many protestant translations of the bible have done just that, they don’t even include the apocrypha
D:

As for issues of authority, if you’ve been keeping up with your Gospel readings at church, you will have very recently heard that Jesus also gives the same authority (binding and loosing) to all his disciples.

You’re mixing [Mt 18] binding and loosing in general, with [Mt 16] where the one who has the keys, and he bind and looses with those keys singularly

.In Mt 18

what is the process?

1. 
   *]Go to the individual
   *]if no result take 2 others
   *]if no result, take it to the Church
   *]if one won’t listen even to the Church, treat them as an outsider
   
   How many have to agree for binding and loosing to occur in Mt 18? 2 or 3
   How many in Mt 16? Peter alone
   
   When Jesus spoke to Peter (singular), and said he would get the keys of the kingdom, No where in scripture does Jesus give the keys to anyone but Peter. iow, Peter can bind what the apostles bind, but he can also loose what they bind and bind what they loose because he has the keys. That’s the power of the keys. Jesus put Peter over the entire Church.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

From what I have seen no one is making that argument. Being able to make a correct statement without the charism of infallibility does not then mean that the charism of infallibility does not exist. The issue is not one of making correct statements, but rather one of being prevented from making erroneous statements.

I understood PRMerger’s argument to be that if I took 1Peter to be inerrant, then I had to believe that the writer (Peter) was infallible. To me that’s totally illogical. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the argument.

So Dave, why do you believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God? If I was a non-believer, how would you convince me? Convince me that the 27 books of the NT are indeed the word of God and that there is nothing there that is not the word of God. And that there were no books left out that should have been included. Convince me that fallible men came up with this list but that I can, nonetheless, trust their determination.

From my perspective, faith is a gift and not something people are “talked into” (e.g., Eph. 2:8, John 6:44). IMO, one can’t prove the Bible is inspired (whatever one might mean by that) by simply looking at the surface of the text and as I said earlier, I certainly don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. I believe the Bible is inspired only through faith–not by looking at the surface qualities of the text or by having someone simply tell me that it is. People are often wrong. Everyone believed in Aristotle’s conception of the universe for thousands of years until Galileo came along; Aristotle was just wrong.

Since I referred PRMerger to Augustine earlier, you might want to take a look at The Teacher. He nicely makes the point, IMO, that you can’t really teach people into having faith–only God does that.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

It all stems from Christ. I believe that the evidence for His divinity is conclusive. Once I believe that (with nearly insurmountable, although not infallible, certainty), then I have to believe in ALL He taught.

How do I know what He taught? Through the very same sources that convinced me of His divinity!

Now, given that I believe this man to be the very Son of God, and that all sources tell me that He started His Church (get it? It has a DIVINE origin, although made of men. Human yet divine. Hmmmmm…) and promised to guide that Church for all ages, then I must come to the conclusions that the protestants seem to avoid. They have faith in Christ, just not in all His teachings. As PR says, this is a logically dissonant belief.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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?

Well, DNA evidence might also be wrong. The odds are exceedingly small, however.

Were you on the OJ jury?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Nah. We’re not saying that at all.

That I believe person *x *did not err does not entail my believing that person *x *could not err.

IOW, it is possible to believe that person x could, but did not in fact, err.

But in your case you need some outside evidence for your beliefs; evidence strong enough to bet your eternity on. What evidence do you have that Clement’s epistles are not inspired?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Again, statements are deemed either correct or incorrect. People are either fallible or infallible. To claim that a statement is infallible is illogical–words don’t have agency or the capacity to err (or “words don’t sin” if that helps make the point more clearly) in themselves. The potential for making a moral or logical mistake occurs within human beings.

That’s fine and as a technical argument about semantics it makes sense.
But it is also avoiding the issue.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You know Dave, I tend to agree with your statement.

There is another category that we are bypassing when it comes to this subject: “De Fide”.

“De Fide” are to be held by the faithful. They are authoritative.

I’ve always find it curious how some statements appear to be classified as infallible when they use open ended words or phrases.

For example, the statement above from SJPII invokes the Grace from the prayer of Christ to Peter and his Faith, he says “this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”.

Later, then Cardinal Ratzinger, says in a "RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”

**

There is no doubt that this is a “De Fide” deposit. There is no word of infallibility. In fact, I doubt there is a single declaration that explicitly says it is infallible.

To me, it has always been a lay apologists tool…

Looking at it as an outsider (and obviously from someone who is a skeptic about the Catholic Church), this always comes across as an exercise in cherry picking. The tradition is broad enough, that it seems to me one can find almost anything among councils, church fathers or papal documents to support their claims.

For example, if a Catholic doesn’t like contraception, they will argue that the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra on two occasions: regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption–and that infallibility doesn’t apply to encyclicals. People that want to support something the Pope has said will claim “ordinary magisterium” or “definitive teaching.” People that don’t like what the pope says will appeal to the sensus fidelis. Etc. Same thing with the church fathers–there’s always someone to quote to support a given side.

I think for something like Pope John Paul II’s statement Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I think the Pope has made a statement that is irreformable, but I don’t think infallible–since I’m denying the existence of infallible statements.

Anyway. Just the way it looks to an outsider.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

That’s fine and as a technical argument about semantics it makes sense.
But it is also avoiding the issue.

I guess maybe I don’t understand the issue then. Do I think the Pope can make correct statements? Sure, of course. Do I think the Pope has the capacity to make incorrect statements concerning faith and morals? Of course. He’s human.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Looking at it as an outsider (and obviously from someone who is a skeptic about the Catholic Church), this always comes across as an exercise in cherry picking. The tradition is broad enough, that it seems to me one can find almost anything among councils, church fathers or papal documents to support their claims.

For example, if a Catholic doesn’t like contraception, they will argue that the Pope has only spoken ex cathedra on two occasions: regarding the immaculate conception and the assumption–and that infallibility doesn’t apply to encyclicals. People that want to support something the Pope has said will claim “ordinary magisterium” or “definitive teaching.” People that don’t like what the pope says will appeal to the sensus fidelis. Etc. Same thing with the church fathers–there’s always someone to quote to support a given side.

I think for something like Pope John Paul II’s statement Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, I think the Pope has made a statement that is irreformable, but I don’t think infallible–since I’m denying the existence of infallible statements.

Anyway. Just the way it looks to an outsider.

All “De Fide” statements/declarations are to be held by the faithful. It doesn’t matter if they are declared infallible or not.

As an insider, I see it the same way. I don’t care if what SJPII said is infallible or not. It holds authority and I am to assent and not give it my personal spin or take.

What is really exacerbating for me is the absence of a Church declaration about what declarations are infallible. Because all it leaves is a whole bunch of Catholics running around stamping infallibility on whatever they think fits the definition.