Infallibility

[Alindawyl]

And you are, according to the writings of one of the counsils (I forget which one) anathema. The Catholic Church has infallibly declared that knowledge of God is possible without belief.

Vatican I declared that it is possible to know with certainty the existence of God through reason:

If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

But that’s as far as reason goes. You can’t rely on reason alone when it comes anything beyond stating that God exists. Once you delve into the mysteries of the faith, you need… faith

Which is why Vatican I also declared:

If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.

We can rely on reason alone to provide an acceptable foundation for believing there is a God, but we must have faith to be able to accept a mystery such as the Trinity or the Eucharist.

Mel Stones is talking about faith in regard to trusting that the Church has teaching authority from God. That presupposes the person in question has already come to the conclusion that God exists, or they would immediately discount not just the Church but all religious authority

 

[Drawmack]

It’s the former.

(“It,” of course, referring to the antecedent “church”). Therefore, Point 3 is correct, yes?

The quoted passages says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It being the church. However, it does not state how the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It does not say and the gates of hell will not prevail against it because the successor of Peter will never mislead the church. Therefore, it could be that the gates of hell will not prevail against it because if the successor of Peter ever does teach error than someone, or some group, will rise up and continue teaching the true Gospel and thus the church will continue on.

 

[Drawmack]

First it is important to make the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary exercise of the Church’s teaching authority. By nature of the office held by the successors of the apostles, they have an authority to lead and guide the flock entrusted to them. They have the duty to teach and to explain what has been revealed. This regular teaching is certainly done with authority, but the Church only claims the protection of infallibility in particular cases. Most notably in ecumenical councils and solemn and binding teachings of the Successor of St. Peter to whom the power of binding and loosing (in part a referrence to infallibility) is given in a special way.

Since we understand that the role of the Magisterium is the interpret and explain the deposit of faith, the first criteria for an infallible statement becomes apparent. It must be in regards a matter of faith or morals implicitly contained within the deposit of faith (i.e. revelation found in the Scriptures or Sacred Tradition). Furthermore, any infallible teaching must be addressed and held binding for the entire church, which is also somewhat obvious and really just implies that the pope intends to use his binding power. Which brings us to a third criteria, that the pope has use of his own free will and full intention. Lastly, the teaching needs to be properly promulgated which really just again refers back to the intention of using binding power and making it universal through the whole Church.

I think these 4 criteria are consistent with common sense once the it is understood that the Church’s claim to infallibility rests in the successor of St. Peter and was promised by Christ Himself. In order to make the Church’s own position about her authority clear, however, these 4 criteria were solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council.

Okay, so what we have is a body defining the criteria by which it is infallible. So, we know that the magisterium is infallible because they say they are infallible and this is correct because they are infallible.

 

[Godfollower]

The quoted passages says that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It being the church. However, it does not state how the gates of hell will not prevail against it. It does not say and the gates of hell will not prevail against it because the successor of Peter will never mislead the church. Therefore, it could be that the gates of hell will not prevail against it because if the successor of Peter ever does teach error than someone, or some group, will rise up and continue teaching the true Gospel and thus the church will continue on.

So, if the devil overcomes the leaders of the Church and causes them to teach error, then a bunch of people leave the Church to stay faithful to the true teachings of the Church despite the Church’s leaders teaching falsely, you believe the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church?

That’s like saying Troy never fell, because Aeneas led his people to the Italian peninsula and founded Rome. Rome might have turned out to be a great city, but the fact is that Troy fell.

If people left the Church founded by Jesus because the Apostles’ successors were teaching error, then the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But IF it were the case that the Church should sudden teach an error, and a ‘new group’ rise up to correct the error, then the new group should be teaching all the Church taught that wasn’t in error, correct?

But where is the Protestant Church which ‘took over’ from the Catholic Church (which by your theory somehow ‘taught error’) and is now teaching all the doctrine that was originally taught by the Catholic Church that was right, has ‘corrected’ the errors, and still continues to teach without error?

If you’re correct, you ought to be able to show, with unbroken certitude, that it was, oh let’s say, the Anglicans who ‘corrected’ all the Catholic error, and nothing BUT the Catholic error. . .but then fell into error and it was the Methodists who corrected the Anglican error–but only that error, still continuing with all the original Catholic truth–etc. etc. Or it was the Quakers who corrected the Anglicans.

So if the Church was protected from error by having people come along and correct the error–where is that Church now?

 

[tdgesq]

I would like to ask some Catholics to construct a logical defense against this syllogism:

All men are fallible.
The magisterium of the Catholic Church consists of men.
The madisterium of the Catholic Church is fallible.

The major premise contains an unwarranted implied term. In order for the conclusion to follow it must read: “All men are always fallible.” Of course most Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God would not accept that premise.

 

[Drawmack]

So, if the devil overcomes the leaders of the Church and causes them to teach error, then a bunch of people leave the Church to stay faithful to the true teachings of the Church despite the Church’s leaders teaching falsely, you believe the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church?

That’s like saying Troy never fell, because Aeneas led his people to the Italian peninsula and founded Rome. Rome might have turned out to be a great city, but the fact is that Troy fell.

If people left the Church founded by Jesus because the Apostles’ successors were teaching error, then the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.

You are confusing issues. Troy was a physical city, the Church is a metaphysical entity. Thus, the Church, is the Church, is the Church regardless of physicality.

 

[Drawmack]

But IF it were the case that the Church should sudden teach an error, and a ‘new group’ rise up to correct the error, then the new group should be teaching all the Church taught that wasn’t in error, correct?

But where is the Protestant Church which ‘took over’ from the Catholic Church (which by your theory somehow ‘taught error’) and is now teaching all the doctrine that was originally taught by the Catholic Church that was right, has ‘corrected’ the errors, and still continues to teach without error?

If you’re correct, you ought to be able to show, with unbroken certitude, that it was, oh let’s say, the Anglicans who ‘corrected’ all the Catholic error, and nothing BUT the Catholic error. . .but then fell into error and it was the Methodists who corrected the Anglican error–but only that error, still continuing with all the original Catholic truth–etc. etc. Or it was the Quakers who corrected the Anglicans.

So if the Church was protected from error by having people come along and correct the error–where is that Church now?

Is it possible that the error was in imposing something more on salvation than what Jesus clearly and plainly stated was required? (Believe and be Baptized) Therefore, any Church which teaches this reality is then the church teaching the truth.

 

[Drawmack]

The major premise contains an unwarranted implied term. In order for the conclusion to follow it must read: “All men are always fallible.” Of course most Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God would not accept that premise.

And this people is how we refute a syllogism. Notice that the syllogism was not changed. Notice that he didn’t add anything to the syllogism. He simply pointed out the internal flaw within the syllogism.

This is not to say that I accept the infallibility of the Magisterium, it is simply to say that I knew this syllogism to be false.

 

[Watchman]

Is it possible that the error was in imposing something more on salvation than what Jesus clearly and plainly stated was required? (Believe and be Baptized) Therefore, any Church which teaches this reality is then the church teaching the truth.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Mt. 28:19-20

Why “all” instead of “both”? I would tend to think any church that teaches only two elements from all that Jesus commanded is not teaching the fullness of Christ’s reality.

 

[Answersplease]

And this people is how we refute a syllogism. Notice that the syllogism was not changed. Notice that he didn’t add anything to the syllogism. He simply pointed out the internal flaw within the syllogism.

This is not to say that I accept the infallibility of the Magisterium, it is simply to say that I knew this syllogism to be false.

Trickery and deceit, how nice.

Are you pleased with yourself?

You made the Catholics jump through your hoops and bark over somthing you KNEW was false, how clever.

Is this how you evangelize?

Is this how you disprove the position of others, by setting up a false syllogism that clearly tries to undermine a Catholic belief?

 

[Katholish]

Okay, so what we have is a body defining the criteria by which it is infallible. So, we know that the magisterium is infallible because they say they are infallible and this is correct because they are infallible.

No, I am pretty sure I made the argument that the we know the magisterium is infallible because God told us so, not because the magisterium said so. That would be a circular argument. The Magisterium, however, defined under what conditions this infallibility was used.

 

[pickguard1]

Is it possible that the error was in imposing something more on salvation than what Jesus clearly and plainly stated was required? (Believe and be Baptized) Therefore, any Church which teaches this reality is then the church teaching the truth.

If you imply here that the only thing that Jesus said was required was “believe and be baptized” you are missing probably 90% of what Jesus stated was required.

If by “believe” you encompass all the rest of what Jesus taught, besides baptism, then “the rest” also includes belonging to His Church, the Catholic Church.