Infallibility a self-contradiction?

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

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).

The major error in most arguments against infallibility is the fact that the proponents of this argumentation forget what Christianity is.

Christianity is a revealed religion. Philosophies can be wholly worked out logically from a set of assumptions. Mythologies can make up stories and morals as time goes by. But revealed religions cannot make up truths, they have to be revealed by a trusted Source that cannot be wrong (inerrancy); these Truths cannot be then changed and twisted to whatever the receivers want them to be, but they must be interpreted for the faithful by a Teacher that cannot be wrong (infallibility).

Please show us first that inerrancy and infallibility are not needed in Christianity, then we will continue talking.

God bless!

 

[MarcoPolo]

But what evidence do we have that God gave us infallibility?

“Whoever hears you hears Me.”

 

[fineca]

Tester’s example is a good one, though instead of the Muslim passage I would rather quote conciliar and post-conciliar documents on the Jews, Protestants, Orthodox and non-believing honest seekers, which are even more striking. It is a terrible stretch to claim that everyone is under the authority of the Pope based on the universality of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Please show us a medieval Catholic that thought so, or better, an official medieval explanation to that effect. Read Cardinal Dulles’ Models of the Church and you’ll see how radically different the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Catholic ecclesiologies are.

Marco Polo and nuntym, pleeeeease spare us! My whole point here has been that it is of absolutely no value to simply quote Bible passages that talk about truth or authority in the Church (Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15) and then simply assume it means “dogmatic definitions of councils and Popes cannot contain error”. That’s what you’d like it to mean, but the evidence is all to the contrary: 1) Does the text itself contain any mention of infallibility, councils, Popes? 2) Did the earliest Church fathers understand these texts as you now do? 3) How many exegetical commentaries support your understanding?

Luke 10:16 has to do with the mission of the 70 to the villages, announcing the Kingdom of God, i.e. preaching the same Gospel Jesus did. So of course whoever would listen to the Apostle’s message would be hearing Christ’s message. No mention of the fact that whatever the Apostles decide to dogmatize together will be infallibly correct.
1 Tim 3:15 is about the Church where Paul left Timothy, i.e. the local Church of Ephesus, whose mission of course is to proclaim the Gospel that Paul taught it, i.e. the Death and Resurrection of Christ and his saving grace. Preaching this message, the Church in the pagan world is the light of truth, the pillar and foundation of it, the place where it is proclaimed. Absolutely nothing about whether bishops 300 years later or the Bishop of Rome 1800 years later would be incapable of error in their dogmatic statements.

I beg those wishing to comment to do so on a meaningful level, otherwise I’ll totally despair of the abilities of Catholic apologetics to defend the Church’s claims.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Tester’s example is a good one, though instead of the Muslim passage I would rather quote conciliar and post-conciliar documents on the Jews, Protestants, Orthodox and non-believing honest seekers, which are even more striking. It is a terrible stretch to claim that everyone is under the authority of the Pope based on the universality of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Please show us a medieval Catholic that thought so, or better, an official medieval explanation to that effect. Read Cardinal Dulles’ Models of the Church and you’ll see how radically different the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Catholic ecclesiologies are.

Marco Polo and nuntym, pleeeeease spare us! My whole point here has been that it is of absolutely no value to simply quote Bible passages that talk about truth or authority in the Church (Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15) and then simply assume it means “dogmatic definitions of councils and Popes cannot contain error”. That’s what you’d like it to mean, but the evidence is all to the contrary: 1) Does the text itself contain any mention of infallibility, councils, Popes? 2) Did the earliest Church fathers understand these texts as you now do? 3) How many exegetical commentaries support your understanding?

Luke 10:16 has to do with the mission of the 70 to the villages, announcing the Kingdom of God, i.e. preaching the same Gospel Jesus did. So of course whoever would listen to the Apostle’s message would be hearing Christ’s message. No mention of the fact that whatever the Apostles decide to dogmatize together will be infallibly correct.
1 Tim 3:15 is about the Church where Paul left Timothy, i.e. the local Church of Ephesus, whose mission of course is to proclaim the Gospel that Paul taught it, i.e. the Death and Resurrection of Christ and his saving grace. Preaching this message, the Church in the pagan world is the light of truth, the pillar and foundation of it, the place where it is proclaimed. Absolutely nothing about whether bishops 300 years later or the Bishop of Rome 1800 years later would be incapable of error in their dogmatic statements.

I beg those wishing to comment to do so on a meaningful level, otherwise I’ll totally despair of the abilities of Catholic apologetics to defend the Church’s claims.

Again, please show us that infallibility and inerrancy are not needed in the Church before we talk any further.

God bless!

 

[davidv]

Tester’s example is a good one, though instead of the Muslim passage I would rather quote conciliar and post-conciliar documents on the Jews, Protestants, Orthodox and non-believing honest seekers, which are even more striking. It is a terrible stretch to claim that everyone is under the authority of the Pope based on the universality of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Please show us a medieval Catholic that thought so, or better, an official medieval explanation to that effect. Read Cardinal Dulles’ Models of the Church and you’ll see how radically different the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Catholic ecclesiologies are.

Marco Polo and nuntym, pleeeeease spare us! My whole point here has been that it is of absolutely no value to simply quote Bible passages that talk about truth or authority in the Church (Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15) and then simply assume it means “dogmatic definitions of councils and Popes cannot contain error”. That’s what you’d like it to mean, but the evidence is all to the contrary: 1) Does the text itself contain any mention of infallibility, councils, Popes? 2) Did the earliest Church fathers understand these texts as you now do? 3) How many exegetical commentaries support your understanding?

Luke 10:16 has to do with the mission of the 70 to the villages, announcing the Kingdom of God, i.e. preaching the same Gospel Jesus did. So of course whoever would listen to the Apostle’s message would be hearing Christ’s message. No mention of the fact that whatever the Apostles decide to dogmatize together will be infallibly correct.
1 Tim 3:15 is about the Church where Paul left Timothy, i.e. the local Church of Ephesus, whose mission of course is to proclaim the Gospel that Paul taught it, i.e. the Death and Resurrection of Christ and his saving grace. Preaching this message, the Church in the pagan world is the light of truth, the pillar and foundation of it, the place where it is proclaimed. Absolutely nothing about whether bishops 300 years later or the Bishop of Rome 1800 years later would be incapable of error in their dogmatic statements.

I beg those wishing to comment to do so on a meaningful level, otherwise I’ll totally despair of the abilities of Catholic apologetics to defend the Church’s claims.

I saw some very detailed analysis of your OP. The only response I saw from you contained this:

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.

Isn’t this a pretty dogmatic dismissal of all that was presented? Where are your arguments defending you claims against the contraries present in the analysis of your OP?

Whether you dispair or not is your call. But, know that it will be without evidence of apologist not being able to defend the faith.

 

[nuntym]

Tester’s example is a good one, though instead of the Muslim passage I would rather quote conciliar and post-conciliar documents on the Jews, Protestants, Orthodox and non-believing honest seekers, which are even more striking. It is a terrible stretch to claim that everyone is under the authority of the Pope based on the universality of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Please show us a medieval Catholic that thought so, or better, an official medieval explanation to that effect. Read Cardinal Dulles’ Models of the Church and you’ll see how radically different the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Catholic ecclesiologies are.

St. Justin Martyr, 1.46 (c. 150 AD): “We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos]are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” 2.10:" Christ… was and is the Logos who is in everyone, and foretold through the prophets the things that were to come, and taught these things in person after becoming like to us in feeling."

14.2 (prob. c 150 A.D. ): “The books of the prophets and the apostles [say] that the Church is not [only] now, but from the beginning. She was spiritual, like also our Jesus. She was manifested in the last days to save us.”

St. Irenaeus, 4.28.2: (c. 140-202 AD): “There is one and the same God the Father and His Logos, always assisting the human race, with varied arrangements, to be sure, and doing many things, and saving from the beginning those who are saved, for they are those who love and, according to their generation (genean) follow His Logos.” Ibid. 4.6.7: “For the Son, administering all things for the Father, completes [His work] from the beginning to the end… For the Son, assisting to His own creation from the beginning, reveals the Father to all to whom He wills.” Ibid. 4. 22. 2: “Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who, according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly… and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice.”

continued

 

[nuntym]

Tertullian - We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, “I have to be baptized with a baptism,” just as John has written; that he might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. (On Baptism, 16)

Cyprian of Carthage, 252 “The catechumens who suffer martyrdom receive the glorious and most sublime blood-Baptism”. Epistle, 73, 22.

Cyprian of Carthage, 252 Epistle, 73, 22. Catechumens- asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the church should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name, whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water?..Those catechumens are certainly not deprived of ;the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that he had “another baptism to be baptized with.” (Luke 12:50). but the same Lord declares in the Gospel, that those who are baptized in their own blood, and sanctified by suffering, are perfected and obtain the grace of the divine promise, when he speaks to the thief believing and confessing in his very passion, and promises that he should be with himself in paradise.

Cyprian of Carthage, the very one who phrased no Salvation outside the Church wrote of Blood Baptism: For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one; that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that MEN’S OWN BLOOD IS WONT TO CONFER THE SPIRIT, and that the Spirit himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and NONETHELESS IN THEIR OWN BLOOD, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, MEN MAY BE BAPTIZED. (Treatise on ReBaptism, 15)

Origen, 2.11-12: (c. 240 AD): “Do not think I speak of the spouse or the Church [only] from the coming of the Savior in the flesh, but from the beginning of the human race, in fact, to seek out the origin of this mystery more deeply with Paul as leader, even before the foundation of the world.”

Origen, , 9-10: (after 244 AD) [the law was written on hearts: Cf. Rom 2:14-16] “that they must not commit murder or adultery, not steal, not speak false testimony, that they honor father and mother, and similar things… and it is shown that each one is to be judged not according to a privilege of nature, but by his own thoughts he is accused or excused, by the testimony of his conscience.”

Origen, Homily on Numbers 16.1: (after 244 AD): “Since God wants grace to abound, He sees fit to be present… . He is present not to the [pagan] sacrifices, but to the one who comes to meet Him, and there He gives His word [Logos].”

Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 7.17, 1.5)“From what has been said, I think it is clear that there is one true Church, which is really ancient, into which those who are just according to design are enrolled.” Similarly: “Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . … for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews.”

Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 1.20.99) Philosophy of itself made the Greeks just, though not to total justice (ouk eis ten katholou de dikaiosynen); it is found to be a helper to this (perfect justice), like the first and second steps for one ascending to the upper part of the house, and like the elementary teacher for the (future) philosopher.

Hegemonius 28: (c. 325-50 AD): "From the creation of the world He has always been with just men… .Were they not made just from the fact that they kept the law, 'Each one of them showing the work of the law on their hearts… '[cf. Rom 2.14-16] For when someone who does not have the law does by nature the things of the law, this one, not having the law, is a law for himself… . For if we judge that a man is made just without the works of the law… how much more will they attain justice who fulfilled the law containing those things which are expedient for men "

continued

 

[nuntym]

Arnobius, 2.63: (c. 305 AD): “But, they say :If Christ was sent by God for this purpose, to deliver unhappy souls from the destruction of ruin - what did former ages deserve which before His coming were consumed in the condition of mortality? … .Put aside thee cares, and leave the questions you do not understand; for royal mercy was imparted to them, and the divine benefits ran equally through all. They were conserved, they were liberated, and they put aside the sort and condition of mortality.”

Eusebius of Caesarea, 1.1.4: (c. 311-25 AD): “But even if we Christians] are certainly new, and this really new name of Christian is just recently known among the nations, yet our life and mode of conduct, in accord with the precepts of religion, has not been recently invented by us; but from the first creation of man, so to speak, it is upheld by natural inborn concepts of the ancient men who loved God, as we will here show… . But if someone would describe as Christians those who are testified to as having been righteous, [going back] from Abraham to the first man, he would not hit wide of the mark.”

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 18.5 [at funeral of his father, a convert]: (c. 374 AD): " He was ours even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body (the Church), so MANY OF THOSE OUTSIDE BELONG TO US, who by their way of life anticipate the faith, and need (only) the name, having the reality (ergon).

St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration 8) “Her whole life was a purification for her, and a perfecting. She had indeed the regeneration of the Spirit, and the assurance of this from her previous life. And, to speak boldly, the mystery (baptism) was for her practically only the seal, not the grace.”

St. John Chrysostom - Do not be surprised that I call MARTYRDOM A BAPTISM; FOR HERE TOO THE SPIRIT COMES IN GREAT HASTE AND THERE IS A TAKING AWAY OF SINS AND A WONDERFUL AND MARVELOUS CLEANSING OF THE SOUL; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred. (Pannegyric on Saint Lucian, 2).

St. John Chrysostom, . 5: (c. 391 AD): “For this reason they are wonderful, he [Paul, in Romans 2:14-16] says, because they did not need the law, and they show all the works of the law… . Do you not see how again he makes present that day [Judgment in 2.16] and brings it near… and showing that they should rather be honored who without the law hastened to carry out the things of the law? … Conscience and reasoning suffice in place of the law. Through these things he showed again that God made man self-sufficient in regard to the choice of virtue and fleeing evil… . He shows that even in these early times and before the giving of the law, men enjoyed complete Providence. For ‘what is knowable of God’ was clear to them, and what was good and what was evil they knew.”

St. John Chrysostom Homilies on John 8.1: ( c. 389 AD): “Why, then, the gentiles accuse us saying: What was Christ doing in former times, not taking care…? We will reply: Even before He was in the world, He took thought for His works, and was known to all who were worthy.”

St. Ambrose . When he talked of Emperor of Valentine II, who died without Baptism . "Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this DESIRE; and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the GRACE WHICH HE DESIRED? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? CERTAINLY, Because sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: "Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest (Wis. 4:7)? (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian, 51. AD 392)

St. Augustine, 18.47: (413-26 AD): “Nor do I think the Jews would dare to argue that no one pertained to God except the Israelites, from the time that Israel came to be… they cannot deny that there were certain men even in other nations who pertained to the true Israelites, the citizens of the fatherland above, not by earthly but by heavenly association.”

St. Augustine, 1.13.3: (426-27 AD): “This very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it lacking from the beginning of the human race until Christ Himself came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already existed, began to be called Christian.”

St. Augustine - That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same Blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although NOT BAPTIZED, it was said: "Today you shall be with me in paradise (11). "Considering this over and over again, I find that not only SUFFERING FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST CAN SUPPLY FOR THAT WHICH IS LACKING BY WAY OF BAPTISM, but EVEN FAITH AND CONVERSION OF HEART, if perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the Mystery of Baptism. (On Baptism 4:22, 29)

St. Augustine - Those who, though THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, DIE FOR THE CONFESSION CHRIST, - IT AVAILS THEM JUST AS MUCH FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS AS IF THEY HAD BEEN WASHED IN THE SACRED FONT OF BAPTISM. For He that said: ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven/" MADE AN EXCEPTION for them in that other statement in WHICH HE SAYS NO LESS GENERALLY: "Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven.’(Matt. 10:32) City of God, 13:7

continued

 

[nuntym]

St. Augustine - “When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (ibid., 5:28[39]).

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, 2.5: (c. 450 AD): “… according to it [Scripture] … we believe and devoutly confess that never was the care of divine providence lacking to the totality of men… . To these, however [who have not yet heard of Christ] that general measure of help, which is always given from above to all men, is not denied.”

Oecumenius (On Romans, 2, 990 AD)“They do the things of the law” using the reasonings of nature for just actions. These are wonderful, not needing a teacher, being their own lawgivers and fulfillers of the legislation. . . . “Their conscience bearing witness to them,” for it is enough in place of the law to have their own conscience testifying for them. . . . At that judgment we do not need external accusers or witnesses . . . but each one’s own reasonings and conscience either accuses or defends.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Summa Theologica
Third Part
Question 68
Article 2
Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?
Objection 1. It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (John 3:5): “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” But those alone are saved who enter God’s kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Objection 2. Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: “We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism.” But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the “faith that worketh by charity” (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, as stated above (1; 65, 4), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary “without which something cannot be” (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that “some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit.” Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.”

Reply to Objection 1. As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), “man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.” Now a man who desires to be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that “the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.”

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without “faith that worketh by charity”), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed” (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

There are more, but I may be cited for spamming. You may read them here: matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html

Anyways, you were saying, fineca?

God bless!

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco Polo and nuntym, pleeeeease spare us! My whole point here has been that it is of absolutely no value to simply quote Bible passages that talk about truth or authority in the Church (Luke 10:16, 1 Tim 3:15) and then simply assume it means “dogmatic definitions of councils and Popes cannot contain error”. That’s what you’d like it to mean, but the evidence is all to the contrary: 1) Does the text itself contain any mention of infallibility, councils, Popes? 2) Did the earliest Church fathers understand these texts as you now do? 3) How many exegetical commentaries support your understanding?

Luke 10:16 has to do with the mission of the 70 to the villages, announcing the Kingdom of God, i.e. preaching the same Gospel Jesus did. So of course whoever would listen to the Apostle’s message would be hearing Christ’s message. No mention of the fact that whatever the Apostles decide to dogmatize together will be infallibly correct.
1 Tim 3:15 is about the Church where Paul left Timothy, i.e. the local Church of Ephesus, whose mission of course is to proclaim the Gospel that Paul taught it, i.e. the Death and Resurrection of Christ and his saving grace. Preaching this message, the Church in the pagan world is the light of truth, the pillar and foundation of it, the place where it is proclaimed. Absolutely nothing about whether bishops 300 years later or the Bishop of Rome 1800 years later would be incapable of error in their dogmatic statements.

I beg those wishing to comment to do so on a meaningful level, otherwise I’ll totally despair of the abilities of Catholic apologetics to defend the Church’s claims.

So my interpretation of Luke 10:16 is wrong and yours is infallible? Have you ever read Irenaeus Against Heresies, especially book 3 chapter 3? Do you understand what apostolic succession is? And that charisms proper to the apostles and the 70 are passed on? Have you read Paul stating as much to Timothy? I think this thread is going nowhere.

I was going to also post what some ECFs said about the Apostles speaking for Christ, but I think that might be pointless since you’ve already “interpretation-trumped” us. I imagine James White will, if he has not already, boast of your writings on his show.

 

[tester]

+JMJ+

Again, please show us that infallibility and inerrancy are not needed in the Church before we talk any further.

God bless!

God’s chosen people , the Jews, did NOT have an infallible interpreter for their God Breathed scripture , so how can an an infallible interpreter be required?

Note: Authority does not equal infallibility.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

God’s chosen people , the Jews, did NOT have an infallible interpreter for their God Breathed scripture , so how can an an infallible interpreter be required?

Note: Authority does not equal infallibility.

And look where it got them by the time of Jesus’ stay on Earth.

God bless!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

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).

I recommend taking the time to read this link to a much larger work, well worth your consideration: bringyou.to/apologetics/num11.htm

 

[tester]

+JMJ+

And look where it got them by the time of Jesus’ stay on Earth.

God bless!

My point was that an infallible interpreter is not required.
And whats your point?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

God is is infallible, people are not: what a concept.

My point was that an infallible interpreter is not required.
And whats your point?

An infallible interpreter is not required? For what? And that is precisely the point of the poster you are responding to. An infallible interpreter apparently was not required for the Jews, but then they had the benefit of Moses and the 70 elders talking directly with God and making infallible declarations on and questions regarding the supposedly very simple ten commandments. Considering that Moses was their intermediary, it is worthy of note that Jesus is ours, and yet he is not on this earth, having passed on his authority to Peter. So who is our guider of infallible truth? The Holy Spirit, and He fittingly provides infallible guidance in matters of faith and morals now through the handed off authority to Peter, just as Moses (and the equivalent 70 of the priesthood) did in the Old, by the guidance of God.

The real trouble for you, is to show the difference between authority, and infallibility, when “binding and loosing” refers to what the faithful are to believe (as evidenced by early Christian and Jewish belief). If authority is on matters of faith and morals regarding God Himself, and heaven must endorse it, must it not be infallible? Can what Peter binds on earth regarding faith and morals truly be bound in heaven if it is a lie? This necesitates Divine protection.

 

[tester]

An infallible interpreter is not required? For what? And that is precisely the point of the poster you are responding to. An infallible interpreter apparently was not required for the Jews, but then they had the benefit of Moses and the 70 elders talking directly with God and making infallible declarations on and questions regarding the supposedly very simple ten commandments. Considering that Moses was their intermediary, it is worthy of note that Jesus is ours, and yet he is not on this earth, having passed on his authority to Peter. So who is our guider of infallible truth? The Holy Spirit, and He fittingly provides infallible guidance in matters of faith and morals now through the handed off authority to Peter, just as Moses (and the equivalent 70 of the priesthood) did in the Old, by the guidance of God.

.

Moses was around 1500BC; who was the infalble intrpreter after that?

The real trouble for you, is to show the difference between authority, and infallibility, when “binding and loosing” refers to what the faithful are to believe (as evidenced by early Christian and Jewish belief). If authority is on matters of faith and morals regarding God Himself, and heaven must endorse it, must it not be infallible? Can what Peter binds on earth regarding faith and morals truly be bound in heaven if it is a lie? This necesitates Divine protection.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.”

If you are knowingly eating Meat On Lenten Fridays and die will you immediately descend into hell. ?

 

[tester]

in order to help this debate can you please provide a list ( a dozen or so) of infallible statements from the Church?

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Aug2004/Wiseman.asp

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements as infallible…

Even though councils have given infallible teachings on matters of faith and morals, they have also made some prudential judgments about which there can be very legitimate disagreement.

Vatican I taught that the pope is infallible when, as the Church’s supreme pastor and successor of Peter, he solemnly teaches some revealed truth about faith or morals ex cathedra (“from the chair”). He must intend to teach infallibly and make this known at the time of that teaching.
**
Most papal and conciliar teachings pertain to the Church’s ordinary teaching authority (magisterium) and are understood as authentic teachings—but not infallible in the sense of Vatican I’s teaching about infallibility.**

All infallible teachings are authoritative: but not all authoritative statements are infallible.

This thread is about infallibility : right?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Moses was around 1500BC; who was the infalble intrpreter after that?

God guided the intermediaries directly. Notice that Moses laid hands on Joshua, and keep this in mind for the NT when it comes to apostolic succession. There is a pattern here of God guiding an intermediary directly, who then makes decisions with God’s guidance that are binding on Israel, regardless of the fact that there are Scriptures. Apparently the Pharisees are privee to this authority, as can be seen by the fact that Jesus states that they sit on Moses’ seat, and does not condemn the authority of their teaching but rather their hypocracy. I refer you to my original point, that Jesus is our intermediary, but he is no longer on this earth, having passed his authority to Peter.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states: “Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell.”

If you are knowingly eating Meat On Lenten Fridays and die will you immediately descend into hell. ?

This is a prime example of a “binding” by the Church in matters of belief for the body of the faithful, exercised in an exhortation on corporate fasting. Going to hell is not a matter of “eating evil meat,” but of rejecting Christ’s authority through the Church. You cannot have Christ and not the body of Christ; there is but one body, with one authority exercised. An infallible authority, when it comes to beliefs on faith and morals. However, authority outside of such areas, such as fasting, are binding as well. This is the prerogative of the keys. Rejecting the ones sent by Christ is rejecting Christ, just as rejecting Christ is rejecting the Father who sent Him. Such a state of spiritual rebellion certainly inccurs damnation, since one has essentially left the Father’s house by deciding he does not wish to follow the rules of the house. Whether the prodigal son returns is another issue. Notice that the Church has also “loosed” this restriction on meat specifically, partly because meat does not have the same connotations of superfluous abundance in all societies as it once did, and so the sense of solidarity with the poor (which is only one part of a rich theology behind fasting) is lost in translation, so to speak. Acts of penance are still required, however, in memory of our Lord’s crucifixion, and the sins of the world that placed Him there. God Bless.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

All infallible teachings are authoritative: but not all authoritative statements are infallible.

This thread is about infallibility : right?

And what is your point, exactly? You seem to be stating that God doesn’t need an infallible interpreter for us, but all this does is presume to know the necessity of something from the mind of God. The Church deems otherwise, and has the authority and guidance of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Pope is infallible because Christ has deemed it fitting to make him so for the guidance of His body, and the necessity of it cannot be debated, else you may as well debate the “necessity” of the crucifixion. Necessity is not the issue. The fact is, God wills it.

Infallibility had only been defined in the 19th century, but the four prerequisites of infallibility had been exorcised prior to this. Can not the Holy Spirit inspire the successor to the keys of Peter in a realization for the Church that every time those four criteria were met in the past, that it was infallible? So in one temporal sense, only two dogmas have been infallibly defined since they took place after the formal definition. However, looking back with new eyes in light of this definition, we can see how it applied in the past. It is no different with the Trinity. We can look back with the new understanding afforded us, and see which early fathers were closer to the full Truth and who were a bit farther off the mark. The seeds of this truth can be found in Scipture just as the seeds of the Trinity. Does this make the Trinity less true in full because it was defined later? Or do we not look backwards with this fresh understanding? Do we not do the same with the OT in light of Revelation of the New? Of course, debating these passages speaking of Peter’s infallibility is your prerogative, but realize that without the Church to interpret the Scripture that is a testament to her own belief, you may as well debate the Trinity with a Jehovah’s Witness, since authoritatively you are on equal footing.

 

[CalifCatholic]

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).

What a crock of crrap.

Infallibility means an act of God, when he prevents someone from making a mistake. When the sacred authors of the Bible wrote the scriptures, God prevented them from making mistakes. He can do that you know… …thats why they call him God.

So when God needs the Pope to speak a truth, he prevents him from making a mistake at that particular point in time.

Man, a 3rd grader could figure THAT out. Good grief!!!