dogma

[thistle]

Thank you for proving my point. The word “infallible” is nowhere in what you quoted. The word you bolded and underlined is “infallibly”. It’s an adverb, not an adjective; therefore it is modifying not the noun “teaching”, but the verb “set forth”. It is describing the manner in which the Church taught, therefore respecting the precise definition of the word as a charism belonging to the Church.

Please check the CDF document “Concerning the Reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Teaching Contained in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.”

It DOES use the word infallible. I quote:

“Thus, the Reply specifies that this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church. It should be emphasized that the definitive and infallible nature of this teaching of the Church did not arise with the publication of the Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.”

The full document can be found in the link below in case you don’t believe me.
doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_commento-dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

 

[thistle]

I also direct you to the CDF document on the Profession of Faith.
It also uses the word infallible.
I quote:

“17 It should be noted that the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is not only set forth with an explicit declaration of a doctrine to be believed or held definitively, but is also expressed by a doctrine implicitly contained in a practice of the Church’s faith, derived from revelation or, in any case, necessary for eternal salvation, and attested to by the uninterrupted Tradition: such an infallible teaching is thus objectively set forth by the whole episcopal body, understood in a diachronic and not necessarily merely synchronic sense. Furthermore, the intention of the ordinary and universal Magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is not generally linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity; it is enough that this be clear from the tenor of the words used and from their context.”

Complete document in link below:

doctrinafidei.va/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html

 

[thistle]

If this is the logic I’m dealing with, I’m not going to keep banging my head into a wall. Surely you can understand the difference between an adverb and an adjective, and you would not say, “Common sense dictates that a person admonished quietly is a quiet person.”

Where is your response to my posts #80 and #81?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Where is your response to my posts #80 and #81?

Your posts are just making aemcpa’s point (and mine) Those quotes are not referring to “an infallible teaching” but rather the “infallible*** teaching ***of the ordinary and universal Magisterium” IOW, the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is one of the charisms of infallibility of the Church. Therefore, infallible is an adverb modifying the verb teaching. For example “His effortless running wins the race everytime.” “Effortless running” isn’t a kind of running. Running is running. Effortless running is referring back to “his” IOW, “HE” is the one that has effortless running. His running is effortless (so to speak) but that does not mean he invented a new kind of running. It only refers to His running. It’s not like there are two types of running, effortless and non-effortless. Yet that is what you are arguing for. The fact is that running is just running, and it always requires effort. Likewise Doctrine is just Doctrine, but Church Doctrine is infallible. That is why it is Doctrine.

 

[thistle]

Your posts are just making aemcpa’s point (and mine) Those quotes are not referring to “an infallible teaching” but rather the “infallible*** teaching ***of the ordinary and universal Magisterium” IOW, the infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is one of the charisms of infallibility of the Church. Therefore, infallible is an adverb modifying the verb teaching. For example “His effortless running wins the race everytime.” “Effortless running” isn’t a kind of running. Running is running. Effortless running is referring back to “his” IOW, “HE” is the one that has effortless running. His running is effortless (so to speak) but that does not mean he invented a new kind of running. It only refers to His running. It’s not like there are two types of running, effortless and non-effortless. Yet that is what you are arguing for. The fact is that running is just running, and it always requires effort. Likewise Doctrine is just Doctrine, but Church Doctrine is infallible. That is why it is Doctrine.

You are desperate. He said the adjective infallible is never used. I just proved it is in CDF documents, not forgetting that you used it in your earlier post.

 

[thistle]

I’ve just spoken to several of my Catholic friends here about what is being said in this thread and they were all rolling about laughing when I told them that apparently a teaching defined as infallible is not an infallible teaching. I can’t tell you what they said but it wasn’t complimentary.
I think this is a good time to bow out of this thread. Its interesting to learn, though, that 2 Catholics think there is no such thing as an infallible teaching.
Goodbye and God bless.

 

[aemcpa]

I’ve just spoken to several of my Catholic friends here about what is being said in this thread and they were all rolling about laughing when I told them that apparently a teaching defined as infallible is not an infallible teaching. I can’t tell you what they said but it wasn’t complimentary.
I think this is a good time to bow out of this thread. Its interesting to learn, though, that 2 Catholics think there is no such thing as an infallible teaching.
Goodbye and God bless.

You are horribly misrepresenting what I am saying. It is more shocking that there is a Catholic seeking to create a category of Church doctrines that are potentially erroneous and subject to change.