Infallibility a self-contradiction?

[fineca]

+JMJ+

Please give proofs. TIA.

God bless!

Sigh, how am I going to prove a negative? Read through the Epistles of the NT, read the Apostolic Fathers, read the Church Fathers, read histories of dogma, and you’ll see nobody claimed that the Church was “infallible” and that this “infallibility” extends to any matters of faith (and morals?) and is exercised either in ecumenical councils or in papal definitions.

The one that needs to give the evidence is you, if you want to claim the early Church understood itself to possess a “charism of infallibility” enabling it to dogmatize new things in addition to the Rule of Truth delivered by the Apostles. And please don’t confuse infallibility with Truth or Authority, those Christ indeed gave to the Church, and the Church is supposed to guard that deposit - not be puffed up and start claiming it can define new additions to that deposit and make them binding and supposedly without any possibility of error.

 

[fineca]

+JMJ+

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials…” Acts 15:28

God bless!

Please stop torturing me by proving my point - see the original post - it PROVES nothing to quote favorite Catholic apologetics texts and impose onto them a medieval or modern Catholic interpretation. Where is the word infallible in that text? Where are the patristic interpretations of that text telling us that it means that general councils are infallible in dogmatic matters? How does a statement about the APOSTLES’ common inspired agreement not to require circumcision to be added to the Gospel (which predated the council!) prove that their historical successors have the “infallible” right to add new dogmas of faith to the Gospel? Please!

 

[fineca]

+JMJ+

And what is the revealed apostolic word?

Then I won’t.

That’s a great way to make an argument against anyone, to accuse him of something then stating you won’t believe whatever he says.

God bless!

1. For example the Gospel about Christ’s Death for our sins and Resurrection in 1 Cor 15
2. I didn’t say I won’t believe anything you say, I just told you not to do what you just did with Acts 15, simply cite a passage without giving the patristic interpretation. I’ll believe you when you show me the patristic consensus is with you.

 

[fineca]

You clearly do not understand infallibility. It not invoked in the instances you mention here. There was no doctrine at issue in the case of Galileo.
Actually it is The Church Councils and the Pope which proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ for generations before any of it was written down and it was The Church Councils and the Pope (in 382 AD) which declared what books are contained in the New Testament and continued to preserve them down through the thousands of years. It is The Church of the living God, The Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

No doctrine involved? Except the inspiration of Scripture, the doctrine of Creation, the authority of the Fathers (whose consensus taught geocentrism), the authority of the magisterium to interpret Scripture (which it did in favor of geocentrism which almost all Catholics now reject except a few heroes like Sungenis). Read Sungenis’ book to see how many times the Church officially defended geocentrism and rejected heliocentrism as HERETICAL (how come if no doctrine involved). But the problem here is the anachronism. You can dismiss any change in past doctrine by saying it wasn’t infallible and thus it could change, so that what de facto has changed wasn’t infallible and what hasn’t is, or perhaps it isn’t, perhaps only the 2 Marian dogmas are as some hold (I’m sure Jesus meant to tell Peter in Mt16 that the Church would be built on 2 19&20th century Marian dogmas, that’s how long the Church needed to wait for the Popes to start using the promise of Mt1619. What I still need is to see the Church understanding its own infallibility from the times of Jesus through the early fathers, explaining what the whole business is about. But it’s not there, it’s a later interpretation, a mess, and a fallible one.

As for the Pope and Councils supposedly proclaiming the Gospel before any of it was written down, Paul proclaimed the Gospel before any Pope or Council made any supposedly infallible definitions in the 40s and 50s in the 1st century. The early fathers didn’t need the decree of 382 to know the Pauline Gospel was inspired and salvific. They knew it from the Apostles who got it from Christ, not through a council or a pope.

 

[Abu]

fineca

1. in original Christianity nobody understood it like that, 2) in fact the development of dogma contains many contradictions and changes 3) some things have been dogmatized unnecessarily (i.e. not necessary consequences of the revealed apostolic gospel such as the late Marian dogmas)
   What I still need is to see the Church understanding its own infallibility from the times of Jesus through the early fathers, explaining what the whole business is about. But it’s not there, it’s a later interpretation, a mess, and a fallible one.

This self-proclaimed “Catholic” chooses to try to deny Christ’s authority and doesn’t know what is a dogma nor a doctrine and denies the infallibility given by Christ and acknowledged from the beginning – no faithful Catholic here, for a Catholic is “baptized…in full communion with the Catholic Church” and “joined with Christ in His visible body, through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.” (Code of Canon Law, Can. 205).

Now the problem is the Church later claimed that whatever it decides to officially teach as dogma will be equal with that Truth. And this we must prove Jesus really meant.

A concocted problem.
Jesus came into the world “to bear witness to the truth.” (Jn 18:37).
We have seen (post #45) that the Way, the Truth and the Life (Jesus, God the Son) clearly founded His Church against which, He assured us, the gates of hell would not prevail. If He had not ensured that His Church could not teach error and thus corrupt His doctrine against His plainly expressed purpose, He then would not be all-wise, all-foreseeing, nor all powerful – He would not be God.

But we know that Jesus of Nazareth gave Peter His supreme authority (post #45), and having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you until the consummation of the world.” (Mt 28:18-20). A teaching authority founded by God must be worthy of God – certain in truth, infallible. Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing, and the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Thus His Church is infallible in teaching His truths (dogma and doctrine) through His appointed first Pope who is infallible in teaching His truths.

Giovanni Perrone, S.J., a theologian of Vatican I fame, was on most biblical grounds when he affirmed that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible. Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p169-70].

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

 

[Ignatius]

As for the Pope and Councils supposedly proclaiming the Gospel before any of it was written down,

False, The Gospels were proclaimed by word of mouth before Paul even began to write his epistles.

Paul proclaimed the Gospel before any Pope or Council made any supposedly infallible definitions in the 40s and 50s in the ST century.

The Council of Jerusalem was the first Church Council and Peter was Pope.

The early fathers didn’t need the decree of 382 to know the Pauline Gospel was inspired and salvific. They knew it from the Apostles who got it from Christ, not through a council or a pope.

The Early Church Fathers, Paul and the Apostles were Catholic.

Which brings me to another point, why are you pretending to be Catholic? Do you think that will make your proselytizing more convincing?

 

[pneuma07]

Hi and sincere thanks for your understanding response, appreciate it!

I used to think the same, but now it seems to me that our access to the Apostolic and Patristic writings give us the direct sources of revelation so that we can compare and see if the CC has actually faithfully delivered us the deposit, and I’m beginning to see too many contradictions, additions, absolutized hypotheses etc to be firmly convinced that God really gave the CC the office it claims.

Dear Fineca,

everyone of us has to do with arriving fallibly to any “infallible/inerrant someone/something”. . In each and every case of supposed dealing with infallible sources, their nature has to be fallibly determined, and their statements have to be fallibly interpreted. You may agree that that is no way a self-contradiction, to answer the title of the OP.

If I consider history, and the NT within it, in order to discern whether the CC is credible candidate to the role of superior informant on Revelation, that is my fallible pv, not the Magisterium. So it is not circular reasoning either.
We are just moving from our very fallible faculties, as observed.

But this does not work IMHO as a “tu quoque” argument, by which Catholicism and all Protestantisms would be on the same epistemological and scriptural boat.

In the Protestant approach I do not simply use my private judgment (pv), as for catholics or everybody, to get what the best interpreter of Revelation can be. The peculiar conclusion is that after all that best interpreter is … my pv itself. That is my measure of the orthodoxy of anybody or anything. Fot the catholic mindset that is the Church.
It is not precisely the same thing looking for the best architect or physician, which I do have somehow to do myself, and establishing that that is me, going on according to this choice.

More specifically on your present contribution.
If I say that I have direct access to Revelation and can then *de facto *measure the Church’s orthodoxy through the centuries against Revelation, IMHO that somehow seems to anticipate the conclusion: that the best interpreter of Revelation available to me is my pv. Two points on this:

• 1. The available evidence is that individual believers acting as interpreters of Revelation are not protected from error, since their views on Revelation greatly differ from each other, producing greatly diverse measures of orthodoxy.
• 1. Is my access to Revelation really so direct ? And is it really independent from the Church ? Or what I have access to are more precisely collections of writings which the Church herself, having received the deposit of the faith from the Apostles, proposed as Scriptures or patristic literature ?

I understand that It does make in any case sense for you as for me looking for a visible superior informant on Revelation.

I invite to consider then this : even if you come to reject the CC as His Church, for reasons x and y, she would be (to my poor knowledge) the only Christian body being able to even propose a case ( both historic and scriptural ) for such a role. A, say ” Z Church of the Unified W, Nevada synod 1953”, or any simila body, is not likely able (whether it is willing or not) to have an even supposed scriptural basis for itself as superior informant, let alone what its historic case could be.

 

[pneuma07]

As for the patristic quotes, I agree with them all wholeheartedly! I believe the Church needs to be unified and the Papacy is a good solution. And I believe the Church needs to faithfully guard the deposit. But the issue is whether it can infallibly add new dogmas and whether it is guaranteed to be right in whatever it teaches, whether its leadership can conceivably make human mistakes in their official teaching… the present Church says no, but where is the evidence from the early Church for such authority?

Let’s go as early as possible

"the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things…who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint.". Ignatius, Epistle to Romans

The grace of God is inseparable from the Church in Rome, she is purified from every strange taint thereby…… Truly unique is the Church of Rome in the eyes of St. Ignatius

And here is our Irenaeus again:

“Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, i.e. with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who . . . are the guardians of our faith . . . and securely [sine periculo] expound the Scriptures to us” Adv. Haereses book 4, ch. 26.

I hope this can help.
God bless you.
P7

 

[spockrates]

Please stop torturing me by proving my point - see the original post - it PROVES nothing to quote favorite Catholic apologetics texts and impose onto them a medieval or modern Catholic interpretation. Where is the word infallible in that text? …

Fascinating topic, Fineca! To build a case for infallibility of any one person, I think the place to start is with the infallibility of Scripture. Consider these words:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

What does it mean to you when the Apostle Paul writes that “all Scripture is God-breathed”?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I don’t like the word infallible (that’s perhaps why the pejorative tone - for example I don’t know whether the Apostles couldn’t have interpreted an OT text incorrectly once or twice in their private conversations with potential converts, I don’t think there’s any dogma on that. Yes, they had the authority to preach the Gospel from Christ. But hypothetically they could abandon it and start preaching another gospel (Gal 1:8). And Paul talks about false apostles… and there have always been bishops who’ve started to teach error. So authority doesn’t equal infallibility.

Paul was inspired and chosen by Christ, personally. The Christian conviction with which I start is that his writings are inspired, thanks to the Spirit of Jesus working in him. I don’t need an infallible magisterium to tell me Paul was inspired, Irenaeus believed so long before the Canon was defined and before the Church started teaching conciliar and papal infallibility. Now, Paul’s “X” was the Gospel, look at 1 Cor 15:2ff. Now if that Gospel is salvific (Rm 1:16) then it’s salvific, and as Paul and Irenaeus and the early Church assumed, the Gospel Truth/Christ is the same today and forever. The Church is supposed to guard that Truth, not add new conditions and requirements and obligations to it. What if it does? What if the Church tells us we can no longer be saved by the apostolic, salvific Gospel alone, but need to adhere to this and that “infallible” dogma developed centuries later? That is my problem. And no, Catholicism and Agnosticism aren’t the only possibilities, there are thinking and consistent and convinced Jews, Muslims, Universalists, Mormons, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc.

This thread seems to have run off without me since I’ve been busy during this last week with work and Christmas stuff.

The two points I would touch upon here are (a) your treatment of Irenaeus, and (b) the agnostic vs Catholic options.

Your approach to Irenaeus is similar to that of the Oxford Movement in Anglicanism, where they believed they could re-derive the Christian faith from scratch, taking a critical look at the earliest documents. The problem is that this either results in a Christianity constructed to one’s personal whims, or a hopelessly lost Faith that is beyond reconstruction. Using Irenaeus the way you are, you’re going to be forced to either end up concluding (1) Christianity has gone so far off the rails that the Christianity of the centuries is little more than a man made institution, inventing it’s own things as it goes along, just like all other man made religions; or (2) that Christianity is little more than believing in the Resurrection, with everything else being “non-essential” and thus Christians are free to believe as they wish.

This leads into the second point, which is that when all things are considered, only agnosticism or Catholicism are the only options. Of all the groups you mentioned, especially the Protestant groups, they all have serious deficiencies that easily disqualify them. More specifically, virtually any argument they could use in their favor, when carried over and applied consistently with Catholicism, will show the Catholic position offers a far better answer. With the standards and demands you’re applying to Catholicism in this thread, we both know the rest of those groups would fare far worse. We both know Irenaeus doesnt sound anything like those “thinking and consistent and convinced” other groups, so if Irenaeus is the standard, Catholicism comes out solidly ahead.

What I am truly worried about is that you’re going to end up agnostic, since no group is going to give you all the answers you desire to the degree you desire them to be answered.

 

[fineca]

Long time no talk! Let’s continue the discussion, this time in a more peaceful and constructive spirit.

I have read through two books on infallibility in the past week, Ignatius Press’ The Gift of Infallibility (Gasser and O’Connor) and Hans Küng’s Infallible? I have written an article on both:

saunadebates.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/the-gift-of-infallibility/

saunadebates.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/infallible-by-hans-kung/

I would prefer comments on the blog’s comment section rather than on this forum, it’d spare me from excessive surfing. Appreciate it!

God bless you all (and Hans Küng, too)!

 

[eddadonkey]

Long time no talk! Let’s continue the discussion, this time in a more peaceful and constructive spirit.

I have read through two books on infallibility in the past week, Ignatius Press’ The Gift of Infallibility (Gasser and O’Connor) and Hans Küng’s Infallible? I have written an article on both:

saunadebates.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/the-gift-of-infallibility/

saunadebates.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/infallible-by-hans-kung/

I would prefer comments on the blog’s comment section rather than on this forum, it’d spare me from excessive surfing. Appreciate it!

God bless you all (and Hans Küng, too)!

spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,787325,00.html

SPIEGEL: Does Benedict XVI even talk to you anymore?

Küng: After his election to be pope, he invited me to his summer residence, Castel Gandolfo, where we had a four-hour friendly conversation. At the time, I hoped it would mark the beginning of a new era of openness. But that hope has not been fulfilled. We correspond with each other once in a while. The sanctions against me – the withdrawal of my permission to teach – still exist. (Ed’s note: The Vatican revoked Küng’s permission to teach Catholic theology in 1979 after he publicly rejected the dogma of papal infallibility.)

 

[fineca]

Thank you, very good! Another quote:

Küng: Through his private secretary (Georg) Gänswein, he thanked me for sending him my latest book and sent me his best wishes.

SPIEGEL: In your polemic book “Ist die Kirche noch zu retten?” (“Can the Church Still Be Saved?”), which was published earlier this year, you harshly criticized the pope for his anti-reformist policy.

Küng: I find it very gratifying that he hasn’t ended the personal relationship despite my criticism.

Admirable spirit from both sides.

 

[eddadonkey]

+JMJ+

Thank you, very good! Another quote:

Küng: Through his private secretary (Georg) Gänswein, he thanked me for sending him my latest book and sent me his best wishes.

SPIEGEL: In your polemic book “Ist die Kirche noch zu retten?” (“Can the Church Still Be Saved?”), which was published earlier this year, you harshly criticized the pope for his anti-reformist policy.

Küng: I find it very gratifying that he hasn’t ended the personal relationship despite my criticism.

Admirable spirit from both sides.

Indeed. However, I’d let the Pope talk and listen to Mr. Küng; as for me, I’ll stay clear of him.