Infallibility a self-contradiction?

[fineca]

Argument: the usual texts used to support “infallibility” (Mt 16:19, 18:18, 1 Tim 3:15, John 16:13) do not explicitly say anything about Bishops of Rome, ecumenical councils, infallibility, dogmatic definitions. Applying the words to such things is a later interpretation, not inspired but necessarily fallible. Thus, whenever the Church started teaching its own infallibility (when was it? how did the early fathers interpret these texts? did they use any of the above terminology?), it did so fallibly. Thus, the Church might be wrong in teaching its own infallibility, thus, the Church is fallible.

Evidence: 1) many changes in official doctrine, name almost any doctrine and a look at the history of its development will betray changes in understanding (even in authoritative sources, eg Fathers, Councils, Popes). 2) questionable “infallible” definitions such as the Marian dogmas which claim to be contained in the sources of revelation but are in fact not (by any objective standard - of course one can follow the Church’s later sensus plenior -interpretations but that is simply falling into the self-contradiction: we are infallible because we say our interpretation is infallible).

Consequences: A critical approach to Church teaching, testing all things and holding on to what is good, what is truly found in the apostolic deposit… yes, people will disagree, who will get to decide, etc? But it is no different among “faithful” Catholics, there is a huge variety of opinions even in central matters of faith, precisely because of the changes in teaching over time: either you cling to the older documents (traditionalist from modern perspective) or the newer ones (liberal from traditionalist perspective).

 

[Scoobyshme]

Argument: the usual texts used to support “infallibility” (Mt 16:19, 18:18, 1 Tim 3:15, John 16:13) do not explicitly say anything about Bishops of Rome, ecumenical councils, infallibility, dogmatic definitions. Applying the words to such things is a later interpretation, not inspired but necessarily fallible. Thus, whenever the Church started teaching its own infallibility (when was it? how did the early fathers interpret these texts? did they use any of the above terminology?), it did so fallibly. Thus, the Church might be wrong in teaching its own infallibility, thus, the Church is fallible.
The “Bishops of Rome” (actually successors of Peter), are clearly implied in Matt. 16:19. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” “The keys” are a clear indication of a dynastic office, i.e., one that is to have successors. They are also a clear indication of authority. In Jesus’ time, the king usually had a second-in-command, a royal steward, if you will, who ruled the kingdom in the king’s absence (away at war, sick, etc.) This person carried around a large key or keys (2-3 ft. long) over his shoulder as a symbol of his office and authority. Whatever he held bound in the kingdom was held bound by the king. Whatever he loosed in the kingdom, was loosed by the king. In other words, whatever he judged, the king backed up. If this Royal Steward died, he was replaced by another one. Jesus knew this, and also knew that He would be ascending to heaven. He wanted someone to rule His Church on earth till He returned.

There is an awful lot of clear explanation to all of your objections, but it requires the Church, which received the Deposit of Faith from Jesus, to explain it. If you turn your back on the Church, and insist on self-interpreting, as you have done, then you are, in effect, doing what the Protestants have done. Since Protestantism began in 1517 A.D., Protestant Christianity has splintered into literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally disunified denominations, all disagreeing on what the Bible means, but all claiming to led by the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn’t write a book. He founded a Church, which He promised to remain with forever, and that the “gates of hell” would never “prevail” over it. IF the Church ever taught doctrinal error, the the gates of hell would certainly have prevailed over His Church, and, therefore, He could not be God, because God is not a liar.

Evidence: 1) many changes in official doctrine, name almost any doctrine and a look at the history of its development will betray changes in understanding (even in authoritative sources, eg Fathers, Councils, Popes). 2) questionable “infallible” definitions such as the Marian dogmas which claim to be contained in the sources of revelation but are in fact not (by any objective standard - of course one can follow the Church’s later sensus plenior -interpretations but that is simply falling into the self-contradiction: we are infallible because we say our interpretation is infallible).
The Church has never, ever changed a doctrine. Many Protestants and uneducated may think so, but it’s almost always because they cannot distinguish between matters of doctrine and matters of discipline. Example: Eating meat on Friday’s was never a “doctrine.” It was a discipline. It could be changed. The celibate priesthood is not a “doctrine.” It is a discipline, and could be changed (but won’t). The teaching on the Trinity, however, is a doctrine, and cannot be changed. Same goes for women priests. The Church, unlike Protestantism, does not claim the right to change the teachings of Christ.

Consequences: A critical approach to Church teaching, testing all things and holding on to what is good, what is truly found in the apostolic deposit… yes, people will disagree, who will get to decide, etc? But it is no different among “faithful” Catholics, there is a huge variety of opinions even in central matters of faith, precisely because of the changes in teaching over time: either you cling to the older documents (traditionalist from modern perspective) or the newer ones (liberal from traditionalist perspective).
Rather than worrying about one’s own opinion, a faithful Catholic is required to give total religious assent to all Church teaching. If there is anything he questions, his first response is to consider that he, not the Church, is in error, and he should seek further understanding of the Church’s teaching.

 

[Gem]

Fineca,

Please list one example of a doctrine which has changed. Please state what the original doctrine was and was it is now.

Thanks,
Gem

 

[Scoobyshme]

Fineca,

Please list one example of a doctrine which has changed. Please state what the original doctrine was and was it is now.

Thanks,
Gem

Gem,

I'm gonna guess that if he answers anything, that it's regarding a discipline, not a doctrine.

Scooby

 

[Della]

Argument: the usual texts used to support “infallibility” (Mt 16:19, 18:18, 1 Tim 3:15, John 16:13) do not explicitly say anything about Bishops of Rome, ecumenical councils, infallibility, dogmatic definitions. Applying the words to such things is a later interpretation, not inspired but necessarily fallible. Thus, whenever the Church started teaching its own infallibility (when was it? how did the early fathers interpret these texts? did they use any of the above terminology?), it did so fallibly. Thus, the Church might be wrong in teaching its own infallibility, thus, the Church is fallible.

Firstly, the Bible is not a proof-text it is a witness to the truths of the Church. The Church existed before the NT, not the other way around. When the Church cites such passages it does so as a witness to that which already existed, not to “prove” anything. Secondly, the early Church Fathers were theologians who sometimes disagreed with each other. They were not speaking for the Church, but in many cases, echoing the Church and exploring the full ramifications of it doctrines. This is called the development of doctrine and has been the way the Church refines and defines its teachings. Any terms for offices and how the Church determines the truth are not in contradiction with Scripture. Saying that such terms are not in the Bible is simply a straw man argument that means nothing. The term trinity is also not explicitly stated in the NT, but it is a foundational belief of Christianity just the same since it is derived from both Sacred Tradition (the oral teachings of the Church and the Magisterium) and Sacred Scripture.

Evidence: 1) many changes in official doctrine, name almost any doctrine and a look at the history of its development will betray changes in understanding (even in authoritative sources, eg Fathers, Councils, Popes). 2) questionable “infallible” definitions such as the Marian dogmas which claim to be contained in the sources of revelation but are in fact not (by any objective standard - of course one can follow the Church’s later sensus plenior -interpretations but that is simply falling into the self-contradiction: we are infallible because we say our interpretation is infallible).

This isn’t evidence of anything since it’s a misrepresentation of how the Church determines sound doctrine and comes to proclaim dogmas. I already referred to the development of doctrine. Nothing more needs to be stated to defend it. Only those who will not understand this principle will not accept it.

Consequences: A critical approach to Church teaching, testing all things and holding on to what is good, what is truly found in the apostolic deposit… yes, people will disagree, who will get to decide, etc? But it is no different among “faithful” Catholics, there is a huge variety of opinions even in central matters of faith, precisely because of the changes in teaching over time: either you cling to the older documents (traditionalist from modern perspective) or the newer ones (liberal from traditionalist perspective).

Of course people disagree, but no individual Catholic, not even a bishop, determines what is and isn’t a teaching of the Church. The teachings of the Church are the same teachings it has always held. There are no new or old ones. Doctrine is refined and dogmas declared from those doctrines by the Magisterium to whom Christ gave that authority. It is Christ who is the ultimate authority–God himself. Since Christ gave that authority to his Apostles, and they to their successors, we can trust that the teachings of the Church, all of them, are sound and infallible. If we say otherwise we are lost and divided. But, the Church is still one, holy, catholic and apostolic and will be until Christ returns. Those who will not accept this are Protestants or heterodox Catholics. The latter need to suck it up and either accept the Church’s authority or leave for a faith community that agrees with them, and heaven knows there are plenty of those out there to choose from.

 

[Todd_Easton]

In Acts 15:28, the conciliar decisions of the apostles and elders gathered at Jerusalem are also ascribed to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Glorthac]

Argument: the usual texts used to support “infallibility” (Mt 16:19, 18:18, 1 Tim 3:15, John 16:13) do not explicitly say anything about Bishops of Rome, ecumenical councils, infallibility, dogmatic definitions. Applying the words to such things is a later interpretation, not inspired but necessarily fallible. Thus, whenever the Church started teaching its own infallibility (when was it? how did the early fathers interpret these texts? did they use any of the above terminology?), it did so fallibly. Thus, the Church might be wrong in teaching its own infallibility, thus, the Church is fallible.

Evidence: 1) many changes in official doctrine, name almost any doctrine and a look at the history of its development will betray changes in understanding (even in authoritative sources, eg Fathers, Councils, Popes). 2) questionable “infallible” definitions such as the Marian dogmas which claim to be contained in the sources of revelation but are in fact not (by any objective standard - of course one can follow the Church’s later sensus plenior -interpretations but that is simply falling into the self-contradiction: we are infallible because we say our interpretation is infallible).

Consequences: A critical approach to Church teaching, testing all things and holding on to what is good, what is truly found in the apostolic deposit… yes, people will disagree, who will get to decide, etc? But it is no different among “faithful” Catholics, there is a huge variety of opinions even in central matters of faith, precisely because of the changes in teaching over time: either you cling to the older documents (traditionalist from modern perspective) or the newer ones (liberal from traditionalist perspective).

You said applying the ‘infallibility interpretation’ to those passages is a later interpretation. Where’d you get that idea?

I posit that from the beginning, the Church has believed in its own infallibility, and when these Scriptures were written, they were written by Catholics with the intent of teaching the infallibility doctrine. Of course these passages aren’t explicit, but that’s what the Catholic Church believes, no passage of the Bible is explicit on anything ever. That’s why Apostolic sucession is important, the Bible cannot teach without a valid interpreter.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Argument: the usual texts used to support “infallibility” (Mt 16:19, 18:18, 1 Tim 3:15, John 16:13) do not explicitly say anything about Bishops of Rome, ecumenical councils, infallibility, dogmatic definitions. Applying the words to such things is a later interpretation, not inspired but necessarily fallible. Thus, whenever the Church started teaching its own infallibility (when was it? how did the early fathers interpret these texts? did they use any of the above terminology?), it did so fallibly. Thus, the Church might be wrong in teaching its own infallibility, thus, the Church is fallible.

Evidence: 1) many changes in official doctrine, name almost any doctrine and a look at the history of its development will betray changes in understanding (even in authoritative sources, eg Fathers, Councils, Popes). 2) questionable “infallible” definitions such as the Marian dogmas which claim to be contained in the sources of revelation but are in fact not (by any objective standard - of course one can follow the Church’s later sensus plenior -interpretations but that is simply falling into the self-contradiction: we are infallible because we say our interpretation is infallible).

Consequences: A critical approach to Church teaching, testing all things and holding on to what is good, what is truly found in the apostolic deposit… yes, people will disagree, who will get to decide, etc? But it is no different among “faithful” Catholics, there is a huge variety of opinions even in central matters of faith, precisely because of the changes in teaching over time: either you cling to the older documents (traditionalist from modern perspective) or the newer ones (liberal from traditionalist perspective).

Are you blogging about James White again? I did consider this a few weeks back and wrote about the topic in my blog here. Perhaps it will help jog ideas in your own mind. Ultimately, the critics’ argument is without reason, and even if it were sound, it would discredit his own Bible. I do enjoy perusing your blog from time to time.

p.s. I think Luke 22:32 when Jesus says, “I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith may not fail” is also an excellent verse on the Roman successor’s gift. Check out also the Greek transitions of the word “you” from plural to singular in Luke 22:31-32.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Argument: the usual texts used to support “infallibility” (Mt 16:19, 18:18, 1 Tim 3:15, John 16:13) do not explicitly say anything about Bishops of Rome, ecumenical councils, infallibility, dogmatic definitions. Applying the words to such things is a later interpretation, not inspired but necessarily fallible. Thus, whenever the Church started teaching its own infallibility (when was it? how did the early fathers interpret these texts? did they use any of the above terminology?), it did so fallibly. Thus, the Church might be wrong in teaching its own infallibility, thus, the Church is fallible.

If I may focus just on this part of what you said…

Consider this popular argument used by Catholic apologists to prove the inspiration of scripture:

1. Start with the historical reliability of the New Testament.
2. The “reliable Bible” describes Jesus, reports him claiming to be God and proving that fact by rising from the dead.
3. Either accept or reject that Jesus is God. (Make your choice now!)
4. Good. So Jesus promises to build a church and endow it with his own authority, protect it from error etc. (Insert the texts you referenced above as “proof” of this claim.)
5. This church is none other than the Roman Catholic Church (not that in Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem, mind you, but Rome!)
6. If this church teaches X as revealed, then you have it on Christ’s authority that it is true.
7. This Church has said the Bible is inspired. Therefore we can move from the “reliable Bible” to the “inspired and infallible Bible.”

Now, if this argument is sound, you could pretty much insert anything into premise 6: Mary’s Assumption, Immaculate Conception, what have you.

It seems to me, however, that the crucial premise is 4. For–at this point in the argument–there is no infallible Bible and no infallible interpreter of the Bible. There are only historically reliable texts from which Rome’s fallible apologists go on to deduce Rome’s alleged infallibility.

But at this point we have no infallible interpretation of these texts–only fallible and therefore only more or less probable interpretations. They may in fact be correct interpretations. (Or they may not). But what they certainly are not is infallible interpretations–at least not at this point in the argument.

Notice where this leaves the average Catholic who wishes to claim that they came to believe in Rome’s infallibility because, “the Bible made me do it.”

They have to rely on their own fallible interpretation of texts which can only be said to be “reliable” with any confidence. They are in no better position than the poor Protestant whom they pity for not having an infallible interpreter or whom they mock for “arrogantly” assuming their own authority as interpreters (despite the fact that they themselves are interpreting these texts for themselves at this point).

In other words, the entire edifice of infallibility rests on mere probability. And in fact, when we look at those very texts you reference above, any responsible exegesis of them will lead to any number of plausible interpretative options, including a church that is merely indefectible, and that is not necessarily headquartered in Rome, that does not necessarily enjoy immunity from error and that–like the Old Israel it fulfills–can fall (and has fallen) into error. In fact, the better arguments point to the conclusion that Rome’s claims for infallibility ultimately rest on improbable interpretations of those texts you mention.

So yeah, I hear you…

 

[Della]

If I may focus just on this part of what you said…

Consider this popular argument used by Catholic apologists to prove the inspiration of scripture:

1. Start with the historical reliability of the New Testament.
2. The “reliable Bible” describes Jesus, reports him claiming to be God and proving that fact by rising from the dead.
3. Either accept or reject that Jesus is God. (Make your choice now!)
4. Good. So Jesus promises to build a church and endow it with his own authority, protect it from error etc. (Insert the texts you referenced above as “proof” of this claim.)
5. This church is none other than the Roman Catholic Church (not that in Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem, mind you, but Rome!)
6. If this church teaches X as revealed, then you have it on Christ’s authority that it is true.
7. This Church has said the Bible is inspired. Therefore we can move from the “reliable Bible” to the “inspired and infallible Bible.”

Now, if this argument is sound, you could pretty much insert anything into premise 6: Mary’s Assumption, Immaculate Conception, what have you.

It seems to me, however, that the crucial premise is 4. For–at this point in the argument–there is no infallible Bible and no infallible interpreter of the Bible. There are only historically reliable texts from which Rome’s fallible apologists go on to deduce Rome’s alleged infallibility.

But at this point we have no infallible interpretation of these texts–only fallible and therefore only more or less probable interpretations. They may in fact be correct interpretations. (Or they may not). But what they certainly are not is infallible interpretations–at least not at this point in the argument.

Notice where this leaves the average Catholic who wishes to claim that they came to believe in Rome’s infallibility because, “the Bible made me do it.”

They have to rely on their own fallible interpretation of texts which can only be said to be “reliable” with any confidence. They are in no better position than the poor Protestant whom they pity for not having an infallible interpreter or whom they mock for “arrogantly” assuming their own authority as interpreters (despite the fact that they themselves are interpreting these texts for themselves at this point).

In other words, the entire edifice of infallibility rests on mere probability. And in fact, when we look at those very texts you reference above, any responsible exegesis of them will lead to any number of plausible interpretative options, including a church that is merely indefectible, and that is not necessarily headquartered in Rome, that does not necessarily enjoy immunity from error and that–like the Old Israel it fulfills–can fall (and has fallen) into error. In fact, the better arguments point to the conclusion that Rome’s claims for infallibility ultimately rest on improbable interpretations of those texts you mention.

So yeah, I hear you…

The Church doesn’t claim infallibility based on the historical reliability of the NT. Nowhere does the Church make this claim for itself. What the Church claims about the NT is that it is the witness to the Church–the Church that was already in existence before the first words of the NT were penned. It claims that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome and since he was chosen by Jesus to be the one on whose person and whose faith the Church would be founded, the Vicar of Christ became the Bishop of Rome. Jesus never said the Church would remain solely in Jerusalem nor that Peter had to stay there. Indeed, he predicted that Peter would be bound and led “where he would not want to go” (Jn. 21:18). So no, the Church’s claim of infallibility does not rest on interpretation of the NT, but on the fact that it was founded by Christ, which the passages cited are but the witness, not the proof. If you wish to make objections to the claims of the Church it would be best to know what the Church actually teaches otherwise you end up making strawman arguments that are convincing only to those who are similarly misinformed.

 

[kepha1]

Argument: the usual texts used to support “infallibility” (Mt 16:19, 18:18, 1 Tim 3:15, John 16:13) do not explicitly say anything about Bishops of Rome, ecumenical councils, infallibility, dogmatic definitions.

At the time the Bible was written, terms like “ecumenical councils”, “universal juridiction” (Bishops of Rome), infallibility etc. did not exist. Neither did the term “Trinity” or “Ascension” exist. Terms develope from existing beliefs, not the other way around.

Applying the words to such things is a later interpretation, not inspired but necessarily fallible.

How can a fallible Church compile an infallible book? The Trinity is a “later interpretation” Whose specifics are not explicit in scripture, and it is infallible. The Council of Nicae that clarified the doctrine of the Trinity was Catholic.

Thus, whenever the Church started teaching its own infallibility (when was it? how did the early fathers interpret these texts? did they use any of the above terminology?), it did so fallibly.

No. The Church has to be infallible in order for her to do what Christ told her to do.

Thus, the Church might be wrong in teaching its own infallibility, thus, the Church is fallible.

It is impossible for the Church to “teach it’s own infallibility”. This is where most Protestants get confused. Infallibility does not come from the Church, it was not assigned to the Church by the Church, infallibility is a gift from God.

Evidence: 1) many changes in official doctrine, name almost any doctrine and a look at the history of its development will betray changes in understanding (even in authoritative sources, eg Fathers, Councils, Popes).

This lie has been well addressed, and I would like to add to what has been said.

The Body is one, and so the episcopate is one, and the unity of the episcopate is achieved through solidarity with the prime source of Episcopal power, the Bishop of Rome. In the Catholic vision the pope teaches in the name of the episcopate and the episcopate teaches in the name of the Church and the Church teaches in the name of Christ, and Christ teaches in the name of God.

Conflicting teaching seems to be given by the same or successive popes. But it is wrong to use one set of statements as indicative of the papal policy without referring to the other set. The popes word their doctrine with extreme precision for a definite historical context, so that the doctrine will not necessarily take on meanings beyond those needed for the question to be treated here and now.

Conclusions must not be drawn out of given propositions with the aid of premises, which the individual believes in but which are not admitted by the original author of the propositions.

To interpret the popes in the light of premises, which they expressly repudiate, is hardly an honest interpretation of their teaching. At times Catholics themselves fall into the same trap. By projecting the papal message, they produce statements which are not the affirmations of the popes but which seem to the interpreter’s logically inevitable conclusions.

1. questionable “infallible” definitions such as the Marian dogmas which claim to be contained in the sources of revelation but are in fact not (by any objective standard - of course one can follow the Church’s later sensus plenior -interpretations but that is simply falling into the self-contradiction: we are infallible because we say our interpretation is infallible).

This is an arrogant and false assertion. The Church teaches infallibly because Jesus didn’t go on vacation for 1500 years. He was with us then and is with us now.

Consequences: A critical approach to Church teaching, testing all things and holding on to what is good, what is truly found in the apostolic deposit… yes, people will disagree, who will get to decide, etc? But it is no different among “faithful” Catholics, there is a huge variety of opinions even in central matters of faith, precisely because of the changes in teaching over time: either you cling to the older documents (traditionalist from modern perspective) or the newer ones (liberal from traditionalist perspective).

Catholics are accountable to follow Church teaching and suffer the consequences (in this life or the next) for failing to do so. Protestants can just choose to believe whatever they want.

 

[kepha1]

If I may focus just on this part of what you said…

Consider this popular argument used by Catholic apologists to prove the inspiration of scripture:

1. Start with the historical reliability of the New Testament.
2. The “reliable Bible” describes Jesus, reports him claiming to be God and proving that fact by rising from the dead.
3. Either accept or reject that Jesus is God. (Make your choice now!)
4. Good. So Jesus promises to build a church and endow it with his own authority, protect it from error etc. (Insert the texts you referenced above as “proof” of this claim.)

Well, Miguel, if you don’t like proof text (the only thing you understand) will you accept arguments from reason? The Church is not “endowed with its own authority”. That is Protestant myth. Stop projecting your decapitated “church” on us.

1. This church is none other than the Roman Catholic Church (not that in Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem, mind you, but Rome!)

Rome is a city in Italy. The term “Roman” Catholic Church was first coined as an insult by the Anglicans in the 16th century. If Peter held his office in Paris, I suppose we would be called Parisian Catholics. The prefix is irrelevant. But Rome at the time of Peter was the capital of the known world, and God in his wisdom chose Rome as the center of Christianity to best facilitate the spread of the Gospel. Bringing up Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem is a red herring to the truth of the Catholic Church having ONE set of doctrines, regardless of where Peter held his office. Future schisms does not change that.

1. If this church teaches X as revealed, then you have it on Christ’s authority that it is true.
2. This Church has said the Bible is inspired. Therefore we can move from the “reliable Bible” to the “inspired and infallible Bible.”

Now, if this argument is sound, you could pretty much insert anything into premise 6: Mary’s Assumption, Immaculate Conception, what have you.

It seems to me, however, that the crucial premise is 4. For–at this point in the argument–there is no infallible Bible and no infallible interpreter of the Bible. There are only historically reliable texts from which Rome’s fallible apologists go on to deduce Rome’s alleged infallibility.

Your myth in 4 has been exposed, and infallibility is not a deduction. It is a gift from God and Jesus is not a liar. You need to re-read Proving Inspiration . The Church has the authority to teach in Jesus’ name because of the Resurrection, not just history books.

But at this point we have no infallible interpretation of these texts–only fallible and therefore only more or less probable interpretations. They may in fact be correct interpretations. (Or they may not). But what they certainly are not is infallible interpretations–at least not at this point in the argument.

At this point in the argument you are making an infallible statement “what they certainly are not is infallible”. Your statement self-destructs. Furthermore, I suspect you still haven’t a clue as to the proper definition of infallibility.

Notice where this leaves the average Catholic who wishes to claim that they came to believe in Rome’s infallibility because, “the Bible made me do it.”

Average Catholics don’t take up apologetics as a hobby. That’s for us wackos. But I think, if asked, the average PRACTICING Catholic will accept Rome’s infallibility because we know Jesus founded our Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. This is why Protestants can’t come to terms with the historical record so they have to make one up that suits their agenda. As Cardinal Newman said, “To be steeped in history is to cease to be a Protestant”.

 

[kepha1]

They have to rely on their own fallible interpretation of texts which can only be said to be “reliable” with any confidence. They are in no better position than the poor Protestant whom they pity for not having an infallible interpreter or whom they mock for “arrogantly” assuming their own authority as interpreters (despite the fact that they themselves are interpreting these texts for themselves at this point).

The Church has never relied on interpretation of text alone.

In other words, the entire edifice of infallibility rests on mere probability.

Jesus was not probably raised from the dead.

And in fact, when we look at those very texts you reference above, any responsible exegesis of them will lead to any number of plausible interpretative options, including a church that is merely indefectible, and that is not necessarily headquartered in Rome, that does not necessarily enjoy immunity from error and that–like the Old Israel it fulfills–can fall (and has fallen) into error. In fact, the better arguments point to the conclusion that Rome’s claims for infallibility ultimately rest on improbable interpretations of those texts you mention.

The Church has never relied on interpretation of text alone.

So yeah, I hear you…

No, you don’t.

 

[MarcoPolo]

For–at this point in the argument–there is no infallible Bible and no infallible interpreter of the Bible.

One other point that should be made here is that the Holy Spirit is properly the only One Who is infallible, speaking through the Church. The header of that section in the Catechism reads “Holy Spirit, interpreter of Sacred Scripture.” See here. In reading the definition of papal infallibility, we see the same thing in that when he speaks as such, he is speaking with “divine assistance.” So the end source in all infallible teaching is God Himself. So whatever Catholic apologist you claim to be quoting should be notified of this. He should be defending God’s infallibility at the onset.

Now, surely anyone can make this claim on a whim that God speaks through them. That is when one who demands “evidence” can look at the historicity and testament of the early Church, the martyrs, the historicity of apostolic succession, the signs of the early Church, miracles continued unto this day, stigmatists, mystics, apparitions, etc… The whole thing is a package deal that cannot be debunked one point at a time. For instance, one cannot say “Well, Muslims have martyrs too!” That’s fine, but I think Islam would fall short of being the true Church because it does not simultaneously bear other characteristics that are a signpost to God that Christianity does. So many converts to Catholicism are drawn as a result of a historical review, not just a Biblical review. It’s actually characteristic of Protestants I know to insist the early Church is unreliable, but rather only the Bible that is validated through that very early Church!

Even your personal conclusion that infallibility is a “mere probability” isn’t a good reason to doubt. There is probability that the sun will rise, the brakes on our cars will work, that we correctly remember where we live, that we know our own names, etc… After all, we are not infallible, are we? Yet we make decisions based on probability constantly that could jeopardize our very lives. Regarding faith, this is what Cardinal Newman said: “For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.” Protestant critics of infallibility become eager to detach themselves from the faith that completes reason. In practice, they turn into critical atheists, demanding metaphysical proof for anything claimed by his opponent, and after the conversation, they turn and make umpteen decisions in their lives on the basis of fallible knowledge.

 

[fineca]

Unfortunately, nobody gave an answer to my problem, and nobody understood me except the one Evangelical who actually did hear me and rephrased the problem: yes, it all rests on the 4th argument and how we know our interpretation including the infallibility of doctrine was intended by Jesus. Because if infallibility is there, it has to be there from Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.

But what evidence do we have that God gave us infallibility? Not enough to quote Scripture that doesn’t explicitly say “infallible dogmatic definitions in ecumenical councils or papal ex cathedra pronouncements”, because if that’s not explicitly there, then later interpretations saying it’s implicitly there are fallible, UNLESS there is a wide and early patristic consensus that this indeed is the sense of these words, so explained by the Apostles. Is it there?

That the infallibility interpretation is late, I got from reading dogmatics (see eg Sullivan’s magisterium, I think he says the earliest record of someone believing in the infallibility of councils is from the 8th or 9th century, arguing on the basis of Acts 15… so we rest on a fallible theologian’s fallible interpretation of Acts 15 for our faith in an infallible Church, and the problem with all of the responses to my question is that nobody here seems to know the history of dogmas. It’s a typical question from such people to challenge one to name even one doctrine that has been changed and to boast in the confidence that all changes have been simply liturgical or disciplinary. In fact, as I said, almost all doctrinal doctrines have changed, not simply developed. You name any doctrine and I’ll tell you how it’s changed. In the meantime, please search for the patristic consensus on the infallible Church.

peace!

 

[tester]

Fineca,

Please list one example of a doctrine which has changed. Please state what the original doctrine was and was it is now.

Thanks,
Gem

for example :

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,** ex cathedra:**
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,** ex cathedra:**
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

From the above statements : do Mulims and Jews receive salvation?
Are sure you are interpreted that correctly?
What did Catholics in 1441 AD think it meant?

Did it actually mean the statement below?

’The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).

I know that the CAF standard answer is that the later statement is just a clarification, not a contradiction.

The answer includes that the plan of salvation includes those who are imperfectly , unknowingly , and invisibly connected to the Catholic Church in spite of the phrase “entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff”

But from an “outsider’s” perspective; it take a willful suspension of logic and the basic understanding of words to claim that it is just a clarification

 

[tester]

Unfortunately, nobody gave an answer to my problem, and nobody understood me except the one Evangelical who actually did hear me and rephrased the problem: yes, it all rests on the 4th argument and how we know our interpretation including the infallibility of doctrine was intended by Jesus. Because if infallibility is there, it has to be there from Jesus/God/Holy Spirit.

and allow me to rephrase.

The Magisterium infallilably claims the Bible inerrantly claims that the Magisterium is infallible.

What if the Bible doesn’t claim that?

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

for example :

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,** ex cathedra:**
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441,** ex cathedra:**
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

From the above statements : do Mulims and Jews receive salvation?
Are sure you are interpreted that correctly?
What did Catholics in 1441 AD think it meant?

Did it actually mean the statement below?

’The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).

I know that the CAF standard answer is that the later statement is just a clarification, not a contradiction.

The answer includes that the plan of salvation includes those who are imperfectly , unknowingly , and invisibly connected to the Catholic Church in spite of the phrase “entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff”

But from an “outsider’s” perspective; it take a willful suspension of logic and the basic understanding of words to claim that it is just a clarification

The problem with your assertion is that all of what you posted lines up with Scripture.

“For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.”

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Unam Sanctam, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302

Suppose a Conqueror lands on a previously unexplored continent, and annexes the whole of it under the banner of His King. Settlers of the Kingdom arrive. The Conqueror then leaves a Governor to take care of the settlers. However, there are natives in that continent. Since these natives lived in the continent before the Conqueror and the settlers arrived, logically these natives automatically become citizens of the kingdom, and thus under the jurisdiction of the Governor.

This is the case also with the Catholic Church. Since Jesus Christ “died for all” humans, all humans, even though they do not know it, can be bestowed with saving grace through means outside the Catholic Church. This was affirmed by the encyclical Sublimus Dei (“We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge”) which echoes the words of Jesus Christ Himself: "“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice.” (John 10:16a)

However, there is a caveat here. Since all humans can be bestowed with saving grace outside the usual means of the Catholic Church and thus become the Lord’s sheep, all of the human race must necessarily be under the authority of the Pope.

Why? In continuing the above passage, Jesus Christ also said, “There will be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16b), the One Shepherd being Jesus Christ. And yet it was only to St. Peter whom Jesus said: “Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15, 16, 17). Therefore, Jesus left to St. Peter’s, and his successors’, care all of His sheep, in the fold (formally Catholic) or not.

In other words, each and every one human creature in the whole world is a Catholic in one sense or another.

And oh yes, another caveat: each and every Person in heaven is a Catholic

God bless us all.

It is not a new doctrine but it has always been believed.

continued next post

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

As for Cantate Domino, please read the whole papal bull here: matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html The following commentary can also be read there, but I will post it here:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.htm ... emphases mine:

We notice, that in the background, the mention of various heresies that have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic Faith. All of these heresies mentioned had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophystes) were anathematized. All these sects have heard the message, but refused to enter the Church despite that fact. Also, notice at the end, it says, that those who shed their blood for Christ, will not be saved, unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed can not be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel.

In the same breath of the message of those who have rejected the true gospel, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not mentioned the gospel. The ones that these decrees are mentioning are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they can not be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” In order for the strict EENS view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. After hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, so anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.) They are thus condemned unless they physically become members of the Church. This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

God bless!

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

and allow me to rephrase.

The Magisterium infallilably claims the Bible inerrantly claims that the Magisterium is infallible.

What if the Bible doesn’t claim that?

I don’t know. I haven’t thought about it, and will not worry about it either, because the Bible claims so.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

God bless!