Infallibility of Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glenn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The infallibility of the Catholic Church is an abstract concept. It’s an ideal. Most of the things that would be defended as infallibly pronounced are things over which there is limited controversy.

Take Humanae Vitae. Ask a bishop if it’s an infallible pronouncement. If he’s honest, he’ll stop just short of “yes”.
 
You can show me I’m in error by providing where it’s declared infallible by an authority with the power to do so.

Good luck. Nothing like that’s been seen since it was written.

What you must settle for is that it’s part of the magisterium and you must submit to it, even if not explicitly infallible. At least, if you’re Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
It should’ve been resolved by the appearance of the Incarnate Son of God, though, no?
Click to expand...
His appearance at the Garden of Eden did not prevent it, but I heard the third time is a charm (His second coming).
 
Gorgias said:
The problem, though, is that individuals want the right to interpret as they see fit
Click to expand...
Well churches do the same including yours. Why would we do otherwise, to go against our onscience
Why would leaders go against their conscience ?

Reminds me of a few “clerics” complaining during counter reformation, about the bible and all the controversy because of it.

Like here, all the controversy due to the gifts of free will, and conscience, and the dignity of every soul inhabited by the Holy Ghost. Some might object to these problematic gifts, or see them as stumbling blocks ( even non rights).

So some might think the problem is using or behaving like we should, using our spiritual faculties.

So the problem is not that we interpret as we see fit, and we have that right, that responsibility, but that we interpret wrongly, even with wrong motivations, which is the worst.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Well churches do the same including yours.
Click to expand...
Ours has an explicit proxy from Jesus to do so. 😉
Why would we do otherwise, to go against our onscience
Why would leaders go against their conscience ?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has interesting things to say about ‘conscience’. It’s not a law unto itself. Just because our conscience says “do it”, that doesn’t make it the correct thing to do. In fact, we’re told to form our consciences properly in order that we don’t hear our conscience say “do it!” to something that’s not virtuous.

Leaders shouldn’t go against their consciences… but neither should anyone assume that “my conscience told me to do it” is equivalent to “it’s the right thing to do.”
So the problem is … that we interpret wrongly, even with wrong intentions, which is the worst.
Click to expand...
Yep. Agreed. 👍
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
he Catholic Church has interesting things to say about ‘conscience’. It’s not a law unto itself. Just because our conscience says “do it”, that doesn’t make it the correct thing to do.
Click to expand...
Yes I was going to add, again, that none of the things I mentioned, conscience, free will, the workings of the Holy Ghost operate in a vacuum. They do not.

Iron sharpens iron…both have the right and responsibility to sharpen one another. The sharper the swords, the more they just glide off each other. If there be any rust or dings and dents, the sharper sword will catch and grab the impurity or imperfection and whisk it off the other sword but with some friction this time.
 
Gorgias said:
Ours has an explicit proxy from Jesus to do so. 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a very well crafted and honed proxy.

I can only say the Jewish leaders, God’s leaders, thought they had a good proxy, in Moses and Abraham etc, and used it to ward off Christ’s “right to interpret as He saw fit”.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
f one of the “Catholics” is the Church, then yeah, I see your point. However, that would just mean that the two entities are “The Catholic Church” and “the person who left the Church.”
Click to expand...
I was not clear, sorry…i did not necessarily mean individuals but differences in opinion amongst Catholic leaders…as an example I was thinking of east/ west division
 
mcq72 said:
I can only say the Jewish leaders, God’s leaders, thought they had a good proxy, in Moses and Abraham etc, and used it to ward off Christ’s “right to interpret as He saw fit”.
Click to expand...
True. But that was because they rejected His claim of divinity.
 
Gorgias said:
Ours has an explicit proxy from Jesus to do so. 😉
Click to expand...
I think this goes back to exactly what MT1926 said a few posts above. It really doesn’t help to assume things like that and think it bears any relevant proof or info.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Iron sharpens iron…both have the right and responsibility to sharpen one another. The sharper the swords, the more they just glide off each other. If there be any rust or dings and dents, the sharper sword will catch and grab the impurity or imperfection and whisk it off the other sword but with some friction this time.
Click to expand...
Interesting…I just thought I would point out that yes iron does sharpen iron, but only when a master smelter or smith was originally involved. One could not take two iron swords and sharpen them on their own. This was a craft that was handed on from generation to generation. One could actually see this has a handing down of an “authority” to sharpen. It takes years of apprenticeship under a master to know what you are doing.
Too little carbon in the iron and you end up with soft metal that will yield in battle damaging the sword, to much carbon and the metal becomes brittle resulting in a broken sword.

Sure there is a chance that one might get the blast furnace to the correct temperature on their own and they might get just enough carbon to adhere to the blade so that they can get the proper result.

Keep in mind though, when sharpening iron we have the chance in this lifetime to test and see the results of our work. However, when it comes to the teachings of our Lord we have know way of knowing (on our own) if our conscience led us to the Lord or away, until the time of our final judgement. It’s one and done, no second chance to go back and reforge the sword.

Personally for me before I go into battle, I think I would rather have my sword sharpened by someone who’s been handing on the trade for the past 2000 years instead of from someone who claims they picked up the manual and understand the proper techniques.

The sharper sword will only wick off the imperfection if both swords were originally forged with the perfect amount of carbon to begin with. Even a 1% variance will ruin the final result of the alloy.

God Bless
 
MichaelP3 said:
I think this goes back to exactly what MT1926 said a few posts above. It really doesn’t help to assume things like that and think it bears any relevant proof or info.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to let it be said I did not say anyone is “assuming” anything. All I am saying is you are beating a dead horse trying to talk to someone about Jesus giving the Catholic Church authority to speak until He returns, when the person rejects the premise that Jesus left us a visible authority to begin with.

Not saying anyone is assuming anything, just pointing out that you can’t prove something to someone who is unwilling to look at the evidence. Now if you can get them to accept the fact that Jesus left us a visible Church then at that point, if they are honest with themselves, they should be asking where is this visible Church.

God Bless
 
And that is where I would say one needs to start with history up untill today and then all the interesting things start.

Back to what I liked about your post. It just made me thing about the many times I mentioned that “certain proofs” are actually not that much proof to others!
 
That is the “default answer” and I am very well aware of that. And yet our Orthodox brothers also understand it differently. In fact all “Apostolic or not” understand it somewhat different than the CC.
 
MichaelP3 said:
Back to what I liked about your post. It just made me thing about the many times I mentioned that “certain proofs” are actually not that much proof to others!
Click to expand...
Yep totally agree. You can’t prove to someone that X=5 if they don’t really care about the value of X. First, you need to get them to agree that the value of X is important, then you can go from their.

That’s why I do my best to always say “visible authority”. That’s the key, if you can’t get someone to realize that we, as humans, need visible authority (to define X) then they will just proclaim, as I see over and over again on this forum, that the Holy Spirit is the only authority (the only one who can define X) and He speaks truth to all Christians.

Oh yeah and it doesn’t matter that the Holy Spirit gives different values for X to different Christians, because we all agree Y=4 which is an essential therefor the value of X must be a nonessential and not really that important. 😉

God Bless
 
Some Evangelicals would probably not like me for this but I see this more as a question of faith. I personally see faith as a very powerful thing and as in scripture it can move mountains. I am not the one who will tell you I have any sort of authority by any means and with that I brush EVERYONE with that paintbrush. Faith is another thing. And that is something not really discussed on here.

So point being. You can have faith in what you believe, as I as well. Well maybe that just points that I do not subscribe to what is your issue.

Regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top