Infallibility a self-contradiction?

[cassini]

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!!!

That is how I understood it CalifCatholic; but after the Galileo case, this teaching was totally undermined by popes, cardinals and clergy. The dogma on infallibility had a purpose. It was supposed to mean ‘free from error.’ But they found a way to undermine even that teaching. Let me explain as I have investigated it:

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority, that is, free from error presumably, otherwise what advantage to the Church was putting the Pope in charge.

In 1616 The Index made it known universally that the Holy Office, under Pope Paul V had defined and declared Copernicanism to be formal heresy. In 1633 the Holy Office re-issued this definition so: " the opinion (Copernicanism) expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture (immutable).” 'Here, then, the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But Papal in what sense? In a sense to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.

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!!!

So CalifCatholic, here we had two popes defining and declaring a heresy that they said was immutable. For those with any Catholic faith then the literal interpretation, the one held by all the Fathers, was a Catholic truth. Infallibility wasn’t defined then, that happened in 1870, so the word was not used, but define, declare and immutable have remained much the same, no? You could hardly have an unchanging ERROR in the Church now, could you?

So what happened? Well FAITH in God’s protection counted for ZERO in Rome when confronted by Isaac Newton’s model theory for Copernicanism. From then on, in 10,000 places, any possibility of divine protection for these popes defining was denied, dismissed and the heresy became the truth as regards the interpretation of the Scriptures.

With this U-turn, the dogma on infallibility itself was undermined, 30 years before it was defined in 1870. Now if any Catholic Modernist wants to ignore any teaching all they need say is ‘its not infallible’ and as Rome reversed the error for the truth, so too might any other such teaching 'not ingfallible, and there are a lot of them.

So CalifCatholic, how do we defent our dogma in bold above against Rome’s 1820 U-turn? How do we show the popes of 1616 and 1633 were protected from error? Simple. Challenge anyone to show the popes were clearly wrong, as St Augustine demanded, and then we will see where the truth of infallibility lies, -still with the ‘Official’ Church.

 

[SPH1]

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

Try replacing the word “infallibility” with “the truth”. What evidence do we have that God intended his Church to have and teach truth, versus dozens of conflicting opinions as in Protestantism? God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) and the church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), not mere opinions of men.

God not only wants people to be saved but to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4). Salvation of souls is not the sole mission of the Holy Catholic Church.

So there is “truth”, God says so. And truth implies infallibility.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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 problem is the term “infallibility” is being used in a pejorative sense here.

The Apostles, whenever they were teaching the Gospel, were acting infallibly. Whenever an Apostle quoted an OT passage and applying it to Christian life, that was an infallible act. In all this, infallible simply means the God given authority to teach, and thus teach only the truth.

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.

So when Paul says “I am an apostle chosen by Jesus” he was not speaking as one who speaks with Christ’s authority? When Paul said to his congregation, “you must believe (or avoid) X for your salvation,” that was actually a fallible statement? God forbid - unless you deny inspiration and divine authority in every sense.
So the question is not when did the Church start teaching its own infallibility; such is akin to the Modernist suggestion that Jesus didn’t know He was the Son of God (in a Divine Sense), and only ‘grew’ to eventually understand Himself as that.

The question really is, who has that authority now, if anyone?
Given that the Church is a Divine Institution, with Christ as the Head and the members His Body, means the Church is by nature Indefectible - it cannot apostatize, which consequently means it cannot teach doctrinal error.

The only options left at the end of the day are Catholicism or agnosticism, since one will either embrace the concept of infallibility and thus put on a path to seek it out (with the Catholic Church being the top contender of all the options), or you will reject the concept of infallibility and be on a slippery slope to doctrinal relativism (where nobody can authoritatively lay down doctrine) which ultimately ends up as agnosticism.

 

[pneuma07]

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!

Hi Fineca !

Compliments for your effort on apologetics and the questions you ask.

The point is IMHO : " *How I, fallible, acknowledge what/who is infallible ?" *
As far as we are concerned here, we will agree that you can easily substitute in your propositions “Magisterium (of the Catholic Church”) with “Bible”, or “Quran”, or “New York Times”.

We have to distinguish two different situations, or steps.
The bottom-up. I, fallible, come somehow to acknowledge source X as infallible.
The top-down. I, fallible, interpret fallibly my X source.

In both cases we need our fallibility, our very fallible private judgment.

The general nature of these circumstances tell us that there is nothing there even a priori to be considered as specifically upsetting for Catholicism.

I’d like to focus on the bottom-up aspect here.

Let’s go to our christian common ground we share with Protestantisms. Our common source is God, Who comes to us through His Revelation.
We believe that the Logos became flesh, that the incarnated Logos would live, walk and preach among us.

Now, should we assume that what we are left with. about the Revelation through the Incarnated Logos. is competing and often mutually incompatible reconstructions, because the preservation of the deposit of the faith delivered through the Apostles was more or less a failure ?

That is IMHO more or less what Protestantisms essentially, in diverse ways, propose to assume.

But is a Revelation really given me, on which
I just receive competing expositions, with any reconstructor being conceptually on equal footing ?

A real way out from that is the antecedent probability that the Revealer left us an established superior informant on His Revelation.
The best candidate to this role that my poor private judgment can see is the Catholic Church. It is also IMHO to be expected that in order to play this role, the Church has been bestowed with indefectibility and a limited sphere of infallibility.

That is in a nutshell, à la blessed Newman, why my private judgment accepts the CC as superior informant, and accepts to learn from her what the organs of her infallibility, ie the bishops with the pope are. I am aware that there are of course tons of possible objections to each and every step leading to this conclusion.

As for patristic witnesses, it is quite natural that the idea that the deposit is faithfully preserved in the Apostolic Church is no novelty at all, as it is that the conceptualization of the idea experiences a development along the millennia. Just some voices:

As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.

Saint Jerome , Letter to pope Damasus letter 15 IV century
*
they still dare … to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness ( perfidia ) could have no access.* Saint Cyprian
Epistle to Cornelius ( 59 or 55 or 54 according to different lists ) ch. 14. III century

*it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church ( ie Rome ), on account of its preeminent authority [propter potentiorem principalitatem] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. *
Saint Irenaues, Adv haereses, Book 3 ch 3 II century

( BTW ask anybody if anything comparable was predicated through the ancient centuries on any other seat other than Rome )

I hope this can help
God bless you. P7

 

[Abu]

The confusion over infallibility is simply a lack of knowledge, or the intransigence of those who have been misled.

Jesus of Nazareth proved that He was God by His Resurrection to which there were many witnesses.
Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

It was Jesus, God the Son, who said to His disciples “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16) even before the foundation of His Church – how much more infallibility can you have?

Christ’s Church develops dogma and doctrine without contradiction as the need arises. Hence the dogmatic teaching on papal infallibility in Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, which defines for us the meaning of infallibility.

 

[simspt]

That is in a nutshell, à la blessed Newman, why my private judgment accepts the CC as superior informant, and accepts to learn from her what the organs of her infallibility, ie the bishops with the pope are. **I am aware that there are of course tons of possible objections to each and every step leading to this conclusion.
**

 

[kepha1]

The confusion over infallibility is simply a lack of knowledge, or the intransigence of those who have been misled.

Jesus of Nazareth proved that He was God by His Resurrection to which there were many witnesses.
Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

It was Jesus, God the Son, who said to His disciples “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16) even before the foundation of His Church – how much more infallibility can you have?

Christ’s Church develops dogma and doctrine without contradiction as the need arises. Hence the dogmatic teaching on papal infallibility in Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, which defines for us the meaning of infallibility.

:clapping:

 

[fineca]

+JMJ+

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

God bless!

Back after Christmas

Sure, just look at the Church in the first 3 centuries! They did perfectly fine without anyone claiming to be infallible!

 

[fineca]

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.

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!
​

I was saying something completely different, I didn’t mean to get into a BOD and BOB debate. But I might say that the issue is by no means settled, the simple fact is that there are plenty of official Church statements to the effect that non-Catholics cannot be saved, and some Church statements to the effect that they can… so all we have is a lot of contradiction on the most central doctrine (who is saved/how is one saved/where can one be saved?), evidenced by the amazing diversity of opinions on this topic in modern Catholicism, from the St Benedict Center to virtually universalist theologians and priests, none of whom are disciplined for their views, i.e. all in good standing with the Church. So either way one set of official teachings is wrong.

So, now, what about the evidence for the fact that the Church is infallible?​

 

[fineca]

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.

Please send me the link if he does

As I mentioned in the other thread, I’m planning my doctorate on Irenaeus See my arguments there. (the thread, not the dissertation

Luke 10:16, sigh, that just shows us the silliness of the whole “infallibility” game. No, mine isn’t infallible, but neither is yours, we need to get back to the context and see what Jesus meant. I gave you my interpretation based on the context, now please show me why you think Jesus meant that future Catholic bishops in councils would be infallible when he told his 70 Jewish disciples to go to villages proclaiming the Kindgom of God is at hand…

And please, yes, give me the ECF quotes, and not simply ones on authority, we need to settle the issue of infallibility, i.e. whether those in authority cannot conceivably dogmatize error…

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

I was saying something completely different, I didn’t mean to get into a BOD and BOB debate. But I might say that the issue is by no means settled, the simple fact is that there are plenty of official Church statements to the effect that non-Catholics cannot be saved, and some Church statements to the effect that they can… so all we have is a lot of contradiction on the most central doctrine (who is saved/how is one saved/where can one be saved?), evidenced by the amazing diversity of opinions on this topic in modern Catholicism, from the St Benedict Center to virtually universalist theologians and priests, none of whom are disciplined for their views, i.e. all in good standing with the Church. So either way one set of official teachings is wrong.

So, now, what about the evidence for the fact that the Church is infallible?

Back after Christmas

Sure, just look at the Church in the first 3 centuries! They did perfectly fine without anyone claiming to be infallible!

Please give proofs. TIA.

God bless!

 

[fineca]

+JMJ+

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

God bless!

Exactly - a great parallel, the Jews THOUGHT their traditions were divinely authorized (orally delivered from Moses), but Christ in Mt 15 surprised them and said they make void the Word of God with them! Now is not the Church doing the same with its supposedly infallible dogmas which were not revealed to the Apostles but have developed over time and are still claimed to be divinely authorized, so that faith in the revealed apostolic word is no longer sufficient? One often hears the distinction between Tradition and traditions, the former being the oral teaching of the Apostles and the latter man-made things that can be changed. Well, later dogmas such as much of sacramentology (eg the necessity of confession for post-baptismal mortal sin), Purgatory, Indulgences, the Marian dogmas and Papal infallibility were not taught by the Apostles as such (and please don’t cite the usual Catholic apologetics passages for these teachings, you also need to show that the Apostles and their successors understood these texts in the same way, which they didn’t, I submit.

 

[fineca]

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

Thanks for reminding me about this! I was planning to read it a long time ago but didn’t get around to doing it… haven’t had the time to do so yet, but at least there’s something to study now… I appreciate it, this is the kind of stuff I need to check out.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Back after Christmas

Sure, just look at the Church in the first 3 centuries! They did perfectly fine without anyone claiming to be infallible!

“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!

 

[fineca]

Try replacing the word “infallibility” with “the truth”. What evidence do we have that God intended his Church to have and teach truth, versus dozens of conflicting opinions as in Protestantism? God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) and the church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), not mere opinions of men.

God not only wants people to be saved but to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4). Salvation of souls is not the sole mission of the Holy Catholic Church.

So there is “truth”, God says so. And truth implies infallibility.

Thanks for the post but that’s precisely the problem. You cannot replace infallibility with truth, because infallibility in the Church means that when the Pope or the Council dogmatizes a matter of faith, then it cannot be wrong. That is a very late theological speculation, whereas the TRUTH was in the Church from the beginning, since Jesus is the Truth and the Gospel proclamation about his saving death and resurrection. No councils or Popes needed for that, Jesus gave it himself. 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. Because if he didn’t, the Church has fallibly claimed rights Jesus never promised, and thus the changes in doctrine (the galileo case was a good example) become understandable.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Exactly - a great parallel, the Jews THOUGHT their traditions were divinely authorized (orally delivered from Moses), but Christ in Mt 15 surprised them and said they make void the Word of God with them! Now is not the Church doing the same with its supposedly infallible dogmas which were not revealed to the Apostles but have developed over time and are still claimed to be divinely authorized, so that faith in the revealed apostolic word is no longer sufficient?

And what is the revealed apostolic word?

One often hears the distinction between Tradition and traditions, the former being the oral teaching of the Apostles and the latter man-made things that can be changed. Well, later dogmas such as much of sacramentology (eg the necessity of confession for post-baptismal mortal sin), Purgatory, Indulgences, the Marian dogmas and Papal infallibility were not taught by the Apostles as such (and please don’t cite the usual Catholic apologetics passages for these teachings, you also need to show that the Apostles and their successors understood these texts in the same way, which they didn’t, I submit.

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!

 

[fineca]

The problem is the term “infallibility” is being used in a pejorative sense here.

The Apostles, whenever they were teaching the Gospel, were acting infallibly. Whenever an Apostle quoted an OT passage and applying it to Christian life, that was an infallible act. In all this, infallible simply means the God given authority to teach, and thus teach only the truth.

So when Paul says “I am an apostle chosen by Jesus” he was not speaking as one who speaks with Christ’s authority? When Paul said to his congregation, “you must believe (or avoid) X for your salvation,” that was actually a fallible statement? God forbid - unless you deny inspiration and divine authority in every sense.
So the question is not when did the Church start teaching its own infallibility; such is akin to the Modernist suggestion that Jesus didn’t know He was the Son of God (in a Divine Sense), and only ‘grew’ to eventually understand Himself as that.

The question really is, who has that authority now, if anyone?
Given that the Church is a Divine Institution, with Christ as the Head and the members His Body, means the Church is by nature Indefectible - it cannot apostatize, which consequently means it cannot teach doctrinal error.

The only options left at the end of the day are Catholicism or agnosticism, since one will either embrace the concept of infallibility and thus put on a path to seek it out (with the Catholic Church being the top contender of all the options), or you will reject the concept of infallibility and be on a slippery slope to doctrinal relativism (where nobody can authoritatively lay down doctrine) which ultimately ends up as agnosticism.

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.

 

[Ignatius]

Thanks for the post but that’s precisely the problem. You cannot replace infallibility with truth, because infallibility in the Church means that when the Pope or the Council dogmatizes a matter of faith, then it cannot be wrong. That is a very late theological speculation, whereas the TRUTH was in the Church from the beginning, since Jesus is the Truth and the Gospel proclamation about his saving death and resurrection. No councils or Popes needed for that, Jesus gave it himself. 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. Because if he didn’t, the Church has fallibly claimed rights Jesus never promised, and thus the changes in doctrine (the galileo case was a good example) become understandable.

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.

 

[fineca]

Hi Fineca !

Compliments for your effort on apologetics and the questions you ask.

The point is IMHO : " *How I, fallible, acknowledge what/who is infallible ?" *
As far as we are concerned here, we will agree that you can easily substitute in your propositions “Magisterium (of the Catholic Church”) with “Bible”, or “Quran”, or “New York Times”.

We have to distinguish two different situations, or steps.
The bottom-up. I, fallible, come somehow to acknowledge source X as infallible.
The top-down. I, fallible, interpret fallibly my X source.

In both cases we need our fallibility, our very fallible private judgment.

The general nature of these circumstances tell us that there is nothing there even a priori to be considered as specifically upsetting for Catholicism.

I’d like to focus on the bottom-up aspect here.

Let’s go to our christian common ground we share with Protestantisms. Our common source is God, Who comes to us through His Revelation.
We believe that the Logos became flesh, that the incarnated Logos would live, walk and preach among us.

Now, should we assume that what we are left with. about the Revelation through the Incarnated Logos. is competing and often mutually incompatible reconstructions, because the preservation of the deposit of the faith delivered through the Apostles was more or less a failure ?

That is IMHO more or less what Protestantisms essentially, in diverse ways, propose to assume.

But is a Revelation really given me, on which
I just receive competing expositions, with any reconstructor being conceptually on equal footing ?

A real way out from that is the antecedent probability that the Revealer left us an established superior informant on His Revelation.
The best candidate to this role that my poor private judgment can see is the Catholic Church. It is also IMHO to be expected that in order to play this role, the Church has been bestowed with indefectibility and a limited sphere of infallibility.

That is in a nutshell, à la blessed Newman, why my private judgment accepts the CC as superior informant, and accepts to learn from her what the organs of her infallibility, ie the bishops with the pope are. I am aware that there are of course tons of possible objections to each and every step leading to this conclusion.

As for patristic witnesses, it is quite natural that the idea that the deposit is faithfully preserved in the Apostolic Church is no novelty at all, as it is that the conceptualization of the idea experiences a development along the millennia. Just some voices:

As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.

Saint Jerome , Letter to pope Damasus letter 15 IV century
*
they still dare … to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness ( perfidia ) could have no access.* Saint Cyprian
Epistle to Cornelius ( 59 or 55 or 54 according to different lists ) ch. 14. III century

*it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church ( ie Rome ), on account of its preeminent authority [propter potentiorem principalitatem] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. *
Saint Irenaues, Adv haereses, Book 3 ch 3 II century

( BTW ask anybody if anything comparable was predicated through the ancient centuries on any other seat other than Rome )

I hope this can help
God bless you. P7

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. 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?

 

[fineca]

The confusion over infallibility is simply a lack of knowledge, or the intransigence of those who have been misled.

Jesus of Nazareth proved that He was God by His Resurrection to which there were many witnesses.
Jesus founded His Church on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

It was Jesus, God the Son, who said to His disciples “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16) even before the foundation of His Church – how much more infallibility can you have?

Christ’s Church develops dogma and doctrine without contradiction as the need arises. Hence the dogmatic teaching on papal infallibility in Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, which defines for us the meaning of infallibility.

A perfect example of my original point. Simply refer to select Bible passages and then give the modern Catholic interpretation… sigh, the problem being that 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)