Infallibility of Church?

[Gorgias]

LOL! I just looked back and saw that, just as I was asking for an example, you gave one!

1. If anyone says that by faith alone the impious are justified (that nothing else is required to obtain justification and that it is not necessary to use one’s own will), let him be anathema.

I’m seeing this written up differently, and in a way that (I think) makes your argument against it moot:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

There’s a subtle yet significant difference between your translation and the one I’m reading…

The Protestant would generally say that justification is by faith alone by God’s grace alone. But they would not say that one’s own will is unnecessary in the matter of faith.

Would the Protestant generally say that he is “prepared and disposed” to receive grace “by the movement of his own will”? Wouldn’t Calvin say that there’s no free will involved in justification – that is, that a person is completely depraved and doesn’t have the power to will good?

1. If anyone says that a man, once justified, can sin no more or lose grace, and he who sins was never truly justified; or that he can avoid all sins, except by a special privilege from God (as the Church holds regarding the Blessed Virgin), let him be anathema.

So, are you saying that there aren’t Protestants who claim OSAS? Who claim that the true believer in Christ cannot sin?

But the Protestant would not say that a justified man will never sin again.

I find it difficult to believe you haven’t heard some Christians make precisely that claim. At the very least, I’m sure you’ve heard Christians make the claim that – having accepted Jesus as their savior – they are guaranteed heaven (that is, that they will not sin unto death, as Scripture puts it).

Glenn:

And though he would say that habitual persistence in sin is evidence that a man was never justified, he would not say in simple terms, "he who sins was never truly justified.

Interesting. I’ve heard some make that precise claim.

 

[Gorgias]

So does Trent consider excommunicated (anathemized) Catholics as “separated brethren”, or does Lumen Gentia, (today’s version) anywhere differentiate between x Catholics and separated brethren?

You’re setting up an artificial dichotomy between Trent and Lumen Gentium, I’m afraid.

Trent (and the current Church) would see Catholics who have walked away from the faith as Catholics who are at danger of losing eternal life in heaven.

Also, Lumen Gentium does distinguish between Catholics who leave the Church and Christians who have never been members of the Catholic Church. Of the former, LG states, “[w]hosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to … remain in it, could not be saved.” Of the latter, LG states:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. …

Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. …

In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about.

So… there’s no difference (qualitatively) between what Trent says and what the contemporary Church says on the matter… although there is a lot of misunderstanding of what the Church is saying…!

 

[Gorgias]

But i am beginning to see Glenn’s point, that then the CC’s excommunication may not be infallible.

It’s a juridical act. It doesn’t fall under the heading of things that can be ‘infallible’. (On the other hand, the expression of the Catholic doctrine which gives rise to the juridical act is infallible teaching.) Subtle, yet critical, distinction.

Not sure to say it is not a matter of faith and morals (basis for excommunication) is a bit squeamish on the point.

Why? A legal act is never an infallible pronouncement.

Another words some people may have been excommunicated with faulty evidence so to speak.

Not seeing how you’re getting that. Trent expresses Catholic doctrine, and then, in the anathemae, quoting the dissenting views (and condemning the Catholics who hold to them).

 

[Glenn]

Would the Protestant generally say that he is “prepared and disposed” to receive grace “by the movement of his own will”? Wouldn’t Calvin say that there’s no free will involved in justification – that is, that a person is completely depraved and doesn’t have the power to will good?

I think the term “totally depraved” is often confused to be saying mankind is as bad as he could possibly be. What is meant is that after the Fall, no part of the human nature has been left untouched by sin, including man’s will. Luther wrote a book entitled, “Bondage of the Will.” I believe Calvin would say that our disposition, by nature, since the fall, is in opposition to God, and therefore requires an act of unmerited grace, so that our heart is changed in such that we can “willingly” turn back to him. Hence the Protestant confession, “Glory to God alone.”

 

[mcq72]

Why? A legal act is never an infallible pronouncement.

thank you.

but wasn’t the Jerusalem council decree a legal act ? It was not an infallible pronouncement ?

 

[Gorgias]

I believe Calvin would say that our disposition, by nature, since the fall, is in opposition to God, and therefore requires an act of unmerited grace, so that our heart is changed in such that we can “willingly” turn back to him.

Hmm… doesn’t that skirt the issue, though? Calvin wrote, " our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence."

That says that there is no such thing possible as to will the good. We’re “destitute of all good”, and are “nothing else but concupiscence.” I don’t think it runs counter to that thought to assert that he’s saying that our will is unable to will God’s grace.

 

[mcq72]

Trent expresses Catholic doctrine, and then, in the anathemae, quoting the dissenting views

Ok, the first part is infallible teaching, the second part not infallible in quoting dissenting views ?

 

[Gorgias]

thank you.

but wasn’t the Jerusalem council decree a legal act ? It was not an infallible pronouncement ?

Depends. Inasmuch as it taught doctrine, it was teaching infallibly. Inasmuch as it decreed a discipline, it was not.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, the first part is infallible teaching, the second part not infallible in quoting dissenting views ?

A quote of a dissenting view can not, by its very nature, be a “teaching of faith and morals”. If you want to take an apophatic view and say “this is not what the Church teaches”, then it would be authoritative and true… but not an infallible pronouncement of doctrine.

 

[mcq72]

would refuse to … remain in it, could not be saved.” Of the latter, LG states:

is that equal to Trent "anathema’’/excommunication ? So for sure LG/Vat II distinguishes between non Catholic and x Catholics, though they both may believe anathemized decrees. One is "worse than the other.(one is excommunicate/no salvation, the other no mention of loss of salvation).

I did not pose it correctly then , but it seems that Trent does not distinguish between the two. Not sure one can assume it only spoke of x Catholics, or that it was ‘generational’, with expiration date (of being born Protestant so to speak)…not sure …asking

 

[mcq72]

Depends. Inasmuch as it taught doctrine, it was teaching infallibly. Inasmuch as it decreed a discipline, it was not.

well then so not needing Jewish circumcision is not an infallible doctrine ?

 

[mcq72]

A quote of a dissenting view can not, by its very nature, be a “teaching of faith and morals”. If you want to take an apophatic view and say “this is not what the Church teaches”, then it would be authoritative and true… but not an infallible pronouncement of doctrine.

Thank you…so anathema boundaries are not infallible ?

 

[Gorgias]

Not sure one can assume it only spoke of x Catholics, or that it was ‘generational’, with expiration date (of being born Protestant so to speak)…not sure …asking

Think of it this way:

• Can a country claim jurisdiction over one of its citizens who has left the country and is now claiming citizenship elsewhere? (That’s an easy one – of course it can!)
• Can a country claim jurisdiction over someone who has never been one of their citizens and has never been in that country? (Of course not!)

Catholic canon law describes (among other things) juridical processes and penalties. These do not apply to non-Catholics – the Church simply doesn’t have jurisdiction over folks who do not call themselves ‘Catholic.’

 

[Gorgias]

well then so not needing Jewish circumcision is not an infallible doctrine ?

I would say that the doctrine is “baptism, not works of the Mosaic law, justifies”.

Thank you…so anathema boundaries are not infallible ?

They’re authoritative. They apply to Catholics. They’re not, per se, ‘infallible’.

 

[Xarto]

That’s what the Protestants believe. If you believe that why are you a Catholic?

 

[mcq72]

Think of it this way:

• Can a country claim jurisdiction over one of its citizens who has left the country and is now claiming citizenship elsewhere? (That’s an easy one – of course it can!)
• Can a country claim jurisdiction over someone who has never been one of their citizens and has never been in that country? (Of course not!)

Understand that as far as anathemas, but beyond jurisdiction did Trent admit to two countries, even “related” countries, as Vat II does ?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

No… we’d say that those who separated are the ones who bear responsibility. You never separated from the Catholic Church, so we wouldn’t make that claim about you. We would say that we’re in imperfect communion with you, but we share certain graces and gifts of the Spirit.

If you are asking for some references to anathemas from the council that condemn Protestant beliefs, and not just those who separated from the Church, here are a few. Note that in general, many of the anathemas are a mixed bag. In other words, a Protestant in many case would partially agree and partially disagree with a given anathema.

Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification… let him be anathema.

Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified [cannot] lose grace…let him be anathema.

Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified… let him be anathema.

Canon 33.
If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.

Thanks for giving the references

I asked the question because the answer to your point(s) needed some historical qualifications HERE

For example, the difference historically between anathema / condemned / and excommunication.

 

[Dovekin]

That’s what the Protestants believe. If you believe that why are you a Catholic?

Perhaps Paytheon has a particular devotion to the Good Thief?

If you disagree with her, what is it that you think Catholics believe? That the Catholic Church DID exist before Jesus died on the Cross? That Jesus did not mean what he said? Many of us might be helped if you would explain the difference between Catholic and Protestant thinking on this.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Dulles further says

" tradition Scripture and the magisterium, are so linked and joined together that one can’t stand without the others."

Think about that statement

Correct. A very Catholic ducument (DV), and very Catholic article (Dulles).

No one denies the famed, well crafted and articulated three legged stool in CC teaching ( scripture, tradition and magisterium), just disagree with it.

Just showing despite detailed teaching (DV) from Vatican on Scripture, the bible is referenced as God’s gift to us,

Of course. No one would argue with that.

mcq72:

and did not see it described as a “Catholic book” once.

For clarity, we’re really saying in short,

1. the Catholic Church wrote the NT. That’s because the Catholic Church was here before a single word of the NT was written. There was no “bible” as we know it for almost 400 years. Do you understand that point? All the writings of the NT came long AFTER the Church was established… IOW, ALL writers of the NT were already in the Church they were writing to and for. As in they are Catholic in the Catholic Church.
2. The Catholic Church then in time, collected, named, and canonized, only those writings that she considered Divinely Inspired. That includes the OT books as well. As in 73 books in the canon of scripture

For further reading… HERE

mcq72:

As a side note, also noticed in Catholic articles that it is just not a book, or dead letters, but quite alive, living, the Spirit of God being put forth as much as your Eucharist, a divine presence thru reading Scripture.

What article (reference please) can you show where the Catholic Church raised reading the bible as equal to receiving the Eucharist.

 

[Glenn]

There was no “bible” as we know it for almost 400 years.

Actually, most of the books of the NT (the OT canon had already been established) had been written and were in wide circulation around the Mediterranean world by 60-70 AD, and all were completed and in circulation by the end of the first century. The official Christian Canon, however, was determined later, but it was established from among the works that by virtue of their apostolic origin and extensive use were already considered authoritative by Christians.