Hath The Church Erred?

[ferdgoodfellow]

In discussions with Protestants over the last several years, their most convincing argument in favor of the classical definition of sola scriptura (as Luther and Calvin would understand it) is that the popes and councils have erred and contradicted themselves and thus proven themselves fallible.

In discussing specifics, it does seem they have plausible arguments. I am not talking about issues discussed in Madrid’s book on alleged errors of popes. I am referring to apparent reversals of pretty infallible sounding teachings, of Trent, e.g.

I was wondering if anyone else has been suffering the “queasies” over such issues and is willing to discuss.

Thanks.

 

[MariaG]

In discussing specifics, it does seem they have plausible arguments. I am not talking about issues discussed in Madrid’s book on alleged errors of popes. I am referring to apparent reversals of pretty infallible sounding teachings, of Trent, e.g.

What reversals would you be referring to?

 

[fix]

ferdgoodfellow:

In discussions with Protestants over the last several years, their most convincing argument in favor of the classical definition of sola scriptura (as Luther and Calvin would understand it) is that the popes and councils have erred and contradicted themselves and thus proven themselves fallible.

In discussing specifics, it does seem they have plausible arguments. I am not talking about issues discussed in Madrid’s book on alleged errors of popes. I am referring to apparent reversals of pretty infallible sounding teachings, of Trent, e.g.

I was wondering if anyone else has been suffering the “queasies” over such issues and is willing to discuss.

Thanks.

Please cite specific examples.

 

[Fidelis]

ferdgoodfellow:

I am referring to apparent reversals of pretty infallible sounding teachings, of Trent, e.g…

To my knowledge, there haven’t been any --and I try to keep pretty informed on these things, as many on this forum do.

Perhaps you can give us an alleged example to start with?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Greetings Fidelis, Fix and Maria,

re specifics

It will take me a while to summarize the specific arguments, but two of the topics had to do with Catholic teachings on salvation (whether or not they have become more “generous” regarding the possibility for salvation of non-cats since Trent) and whether or not the Latin Vulgate was infallibly declared to the be infallible and the only Bible to be used by Catholics.

I will try and post again this evening with the details. Thanks for your interest.

Ferd

 

[mark_a]

ferdgoodfellow:

…their most convincing argument in favor of the classical definition of (as Luther and Calvin would understand it).

Be sure to keep in mind present day sola scriptura has changed since Luther’s and Calvin’s sola scriptura.

 

[jeffreedy789]

also keep in mind the difference between dogma and doctrine.

i would say, though, that even if they could (which i seriously doubt) come up with a concrete, inarguable example of the church reversing itself, that wouldn’t nail sola scriptura. sola scriptura is self defeating. how can any intelligent person (i hear fingers warming up as i write this) hold a position that says ‘i will only believe what the Bible says and nothing else’ when the Bible, not only does not endorse this idea, but even tells us NOT to do that, but to follow the ‘oral teachings and traditions’ that are passed down from the apostles?

 

[RobedWithLight]

ferdgoodfellow:

Greetings Fidelis, Fix and Maria,

re specifics

It will take me a while to summarize the specific arguments, but two of the topics had to do with Catholic teachings on salvation (whether or not they have become more “generous” regarding the possibility for salvation of non-cats since Trent) and whether or not the Latin Vulgate was infallibly declared to the be infallible and the only Bible to be used by Catholics.

I will try and post again this evening with the details. Thanks for your interest.

Ferd

Aside from providing concrete examples of such alleged departures from classical Church doctrines / teachings, you should likewise keep in mind that critics often overlook or ignore the distinction between development of doctrine and the evolution of doctrine, which are not the same.

Gerry

 

[RobedWithLight]

To continue the point I was making in my previous post, Development of doctrine, as Father John Hardon eloquently defined it is:

** Growth in the Church’s understanding of the truths of divine revelation. Also called dogmatic progress or dogmatic development, it is the gradual unfolding of the meaning of what God has revealed. Always presumed is that the substantial truth of a revealed mystery remains unchanged. What changes is the subjective grasp of the revealed truth. **

Divinely revealed truth does not and cannot change but only clarified and expounded upon, which the Church is mandated to do in its role not merely as the guardian of the rich apostolic deposit, but also as teacher and expounder of those same truths.

Gerry

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Mornin Jeff,

jeffreedy789:

i would say, though, that even if they could (which i seriously doubt) come up with a concrete, inarguable example of the church reversing itself, that wouldn’t nail sola scriptura. sola scriptura is self defeating. how can any intelligent person (i hear fingers warming up as i write this) hold a position that says ‘i will only believe what the Bible says and nothing else’ when the Bible, not only does not endorse this idea, but even tells us NOT to do that, but to follow the ‘oral teachings and traditions’ that are passed down from the apostles?

Sola Scriptura in its modern evangelical version (what some call solo scriptura or Tradition 0) is certainly self-contradictory. SS, as presented by some modern Protestant theologians who try to develop a more nuanced and sophisticated approach consistent with Calvin and Luther, is harder to attack. Remember that they do not say that Scripture is the only authority, but, rather, that Scipture is the only infallible authority. This justifies subordinating non-scriptural authorities to the Bible. Even though the Bible is an object that must be perceived and interpreted, it has sufficient clarity to make known the necessary truths for salvation.

The other elements of this understanding of SS are (as best as I can understand):

1. sola fide.
2. a different understanding of church (authoritative but fallible, more spiritualized, etc.)
3. a belief in “The Essentials” (hard to pin down) and a pretty restricted understanding of dogma.

Keep in mind that this view does not reject tradition as a matter of principle. It will make use of tradition, but run it through a more restrictive filter. This view also resists the notion that the church can propose a binding believe on the individual, the adherenece to which has implications for one’s salvation.

I am not saying that this model isn’t problematic, but it cannot be so easily dismissed as the other version. It begins with the presuppostion that the “Church hath erred” and we therefore are left with nothing else.

ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Let’s begin with examining the canons of Trent (which everyone would acknowledge as being infallible and non-reversible) the charge that V2 has done exactly that.

I’m still pulling the different arguments together. hopefully later today.

yours very truly,

ferd

 

[fix]

Catholic teachings on salvation (whether or not they have become more “generous” regarding the possibility for salvation of non-cats since Trent)

I am sure you know that the Church still teaches there is no salvation outside the Church. That must be properly understood, but the Church has not changed the doctrine.

If any human reaches heaven, they do so through the CC, whether they realize it while on earth or not. My understanding is that the Church teaches that if a Catholic dies in a state of grace they will reach heaven with ablsolute certainty. Non Catholics may, also, be saved if they are invincibly ignorant. The Church does not teach they will be saved with the same degree of certainity as Catholics, but it is possible they can be saved.

Non Catholic Christains that were properly baptized have some tie to the CC, but not the fullness. As far as I am aware they fall into the invincibly ignorant,in many cases as well, but that is a much more nuanced topic.

Some have pointed out that it would be hard to be invincibly ignorant in our society.

 

[Dan-Man916]

There has definately been a development of doctrine when it comes to the infallible dogma that OUtside the CHurch there is no salvation just as their has been a definite development of the infallible dogma of the Trinity from the time of the APostles will Nicea I.

When we look at the Conciliar documents of Vatican II, they do indeed affirm that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. What Vatican II does develop is that there are spheres of salvation that derive their efficacy from the Catholic Church. In this way, they are related to the Church, eventhough they may not be in perfect union from the Church.
JPII’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio speaks of this, and Dominus Iesus helped to clarify the Church’s teaching against the modernists who asserted that salvation can be found in any religious system.

So there is no reversal of this dogma. It is simply that we have a deeper understanding of what the dogma means and how it is to be applied.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dan–well said!

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Here is the question: Does Trent anathemtize V2?

Specifically:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

How is this to be reconciled with Lumen Gentium 16, where it says ,in relevent part:

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator…
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church…
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life…”

Does acknolwedgement of the Creator, striving to live a good life, etc. replace the sacraments as the means to salvation?

Cordially,

Ferd

 

[cestusdei]

Ferd, even Piux IX (no liberal) held to the traditional view of invincible ignorance. LG seems to be a futher explication of that just using different terminology. Dominus Iesus made it clear that everyone who is saved is saved by Christ.

 

[mtr01]

ferdgoodfellow:

Here is the question: Does Trent anathemtize V2?

Does acknolwedgement of the Creator, striving to live a good life, etc. replace the sacraments as the means to salvation?

Cordially,

Ferd

Only in the case of invincible ignorance regarding the Church. Your example of the African tribesman would fit the definition of invincible ignorance…through no fault of his own he was not introduced to the gospels and the Church.

As for your example concerning the vulgate, infallibility only applies to questions of faith and morals. It is not a doctrine of the church that the pope is infallible regarding bible translations, or on a physics test, or even on Jeopardy! for that matter. It seems like the people you are talking to are confusing infallibility with impeccability. Also remember that infallibility is a negative protection; it simply prevents the pope from teaching error in regard to faith and morals.

 

[John_Higgins]

ferdgoodfellow:

Let’s begin with examining the canons of Trent (which everyone would acknowledge as being infallible and non-reversible)

Everyone acknowledges that? No.

John

 

[quintessential5]

fix:

Non Catholic Christains that were properly baptized have some tie to the CC, but not the fullness. As far as I am aware they fall into the invincibly ignorant,in many cases as well, but that is a much more nuanced topic.

Indeed, anyone who has received a valid baptism is a part of the Catholic Church whether they know it or not.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Good morning all,

The problem is that the plain language of Trent is contradicted by the plain language of LG. Trent says ya gotta have the sacraments to be saved, but V2 makes an exception for the invincibly ignorant and “doing the best he can” heathen.

I realize that the Church very early on began to grapple with the problem of salvation for various categories of non-Cats, but it seems that Trent would have been an ideal time to settle it. It also seems that Trent was attempting to establish adn reinforce the Catholic system of salvation with Church, sacraments, etc. It was trying to be comprehensive. Yet it clearly did not talk in terms of invincible ignorance and the like.

What is it about the language of Trent that permits this apparent deviation?

Cordially,

Ferd