Infallibility?

[Tyrel]

Yes, I did review that link.

The only time “inerrant” (or “inerrancy”) was mentioned was in your own comments, right? Nothing in any of the Church fathers or Encyclicals. Right?

If that’s correct, then it’s clear that you are claiming Scripture is inerrant, but it’s not at all clear that the Catholic Church does.

That’s my point.

Right, you were word searching for a theological term. However, showing that the encyclicals don’t contain the word, at least as it translates to English (“inerrancy” or “inerrant”) is no more a considerable point than that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not (often) use the word Trinity, which is originally a Latin formulation if I am not mistaken. Nevertheless the Fathers believed it.

The term refers to a doctrine, that doctrine is clearly and explicitly taught by the Catholic Church, via the ordinary Magisterium. The word inerrant, moreover, isn’t my invention, but it is the term in the English speaking world referring to the doctrine that the Scriptures are entirely without error.

I hope that clears things up, and I certainly hope you accept this doctrine as well, seeing as it’s true.

 

[Vince1022]

"Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

Exactly!! That is what I’ve been referring to all along. Glad we agree!

 

[Vince1022]

Right, you were word searching for a theological term. However, showing that the encyclicals don’t contain the word, at least as it translates to English (“inerrancy” or “inerrant”) is no more a considerable point than that the Ante-Nicene Fathers did not (often) use the word Trinity, which is originally a Latin formulation if I am not mistaken. Nevertheless the Fathers believed it.

The term refers to a doctrine, that doctrine is clearly and explicitly taught by the Catholic Church, via the ordinary Magisterium. The word inerrant, moreover, isn’t my invention, but it is the term in the English speaking world referring to the doctrine that the Scriptures are entirely without error.

I hope that clears things up, and I certainly hope you accept this doctrine as well, seeing as it’s true.

If the English speaking world uses the term “inerrant” regarding Scripture, then why doesn’t the Church use it in the Catechism? Or the teachings of Vatican II?

 

[steve_b]

If the English speaking world uses the term “inerrant” regarding Scripture, then why doesn’t the Church use it in the Catechism? Or the teachings of Vatican II?

Definition of inerrant**:** free from error

Whether scripture is said to be without error or it is said to be inerrant, either way, it’s a distinction without a difference. Regardless of how it is stated,

• without error = inerrant

for example

CCC
**107 **The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

 

[Vince1022]

Definition of inerrant**:** free from error

Whether scripture is said to be without error or it is said to be inerrant, either way, it’s a distinction without a difference. Regardless of how it is stated,

• without error = inerrant

for example

CCC
**107 **The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Right. The term “inerrant” is not used. Thanks!

 

[Tyrel]

Right. The term “inerrant” is not used. Thanks!

You’re a ‘quizzling’ aren’t you. Very well, instead of playing games, why don’t I just put forward this definition of what is called inerrancy which is proposed and mandated by the Pope, which you are bound to assent to. Tell us if you assent, and if you do not, how and why you have remained in the Church? What you gain from being in visible unity with Christ is precisely nothing if you aren’t a child of the Church.

"“It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who… do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond… this system cannot be tolerated”
~ Pope Leo XIII

 

[Vince1022]

You’re a ‘quizzling’ aren’t you.

I don’t know what that means. Sorry.

Very well, instead of playing games, why don’t I just put forward this definition of what is called inerrancy which is proposed and mandated by the Pope, which you are bound to assent to. Tell us if you assent, and if you do not, how and why you have remained in the Church? What you gain from being in visible unity with Christ is precisely nothing if you aren’t a child of the Church.

I am not playing games. Rather, those who for some reason cling to the word “inerrant” are. If the Catholic Church does not use the word “inerrant” regarding Scripture, then what’s the big deal? Why are some clinging to that word, when the Catholic Church does not use it in her teachings regarding Scripture? Why not start with, and accept, what the Church teaches, rather than starting with the word “inerrant”?

 

[Tyrel]

I don’t know what that means. Sorry.

That’s alright, upon reflection I realize I’ve heard it being used by speakers such as Peter Kreeft, but that’s no guarantee that it is a word. I mean by that simply that you seem to be trying to escape the inevitable conclusion of inerrancy. However, you say:

I am not playing games. Rather, those who for some reason cling to the word “inerrant” are. If the Catholic Church does not use the word “inerrant” regarding Scripture, then what’s the big deal? Why are some clinging to that word, when the Catholic Church does not use it in her teachings regarding Scripture? Why not start with, and accept, what the Church teaches, rather than starting with the word “inerrant”?

Very well, I will take you at your word, and take you seriously. Perhaps it is the case that the word inerrant is imported from a Protestant vocabulary. That would make sense, since the English speaking world has often been characterized by its protestantism, and not an insignificant amount of protestant theology has influenced and colored theological discussion in the English speaking world. Perhaps the Catholic phrase should be a Latin rendition, properly speaking. Supposing, then, that I changed my tone. Supposing I responded as such: “The Catholic Church teaches by the ordinary Magisterium (and always has consistently, constantly, in the face of every opposition) that the Scriptures are completely without error.”

Now, if I put it in these terms, which are aimed at parroting more closely the language of the Popes, supposing I put it in these terms - do you now concede the point? Do you accept this definitive teaching?

 

[Vince1022]

That’s alright, upon reflection I realize I’ve heard it being used by speakers such as Peter Kreeft, but that’s no guarantee that it is a word. I mean by that simply that you seem to be trying to escape the inevitable conclusion of inerrancy. However, you say:

Very well, I will take you at your word, and take you seriously. Perhaps it is the case that the word inerrant is imported from a Protestant vocabulary. That would make sense, since the English speaking world has often been characterized by its protestantism, and not an insignificant amount of protestant theology has influenced and colored theological discussion in the English speaking world. Perhaps the Catholic phrase should be a Latin rendition, properly speaking. Supposing, then, that I changed my tone. Supposing I responded as such: “The Catholic Church teaches by the ordinary Magisterium (and always has consistently, constantly, in the face of every opposition) that the Scriptures are completely without error.”

Now, if I put it in these terms, which are aimed at parroting more closely the language of the Popes, supposing I put it in these terms - do you now concede the point? Do you accept this definitive teaching?

I accept what the Catholic Church teaches, e.g. the Catechism para 107, and Vatican II’s teaching in Dei Verbum, para 11.

 

[Abu]

Mardukm
I am bound by religious assent to accept all that my bishop teaches (i.e., doctrine), and must accept with an assent of faith all that the Church teaches universally (i.e., dogma).

It is vital to know when papal infallibility is exercised.
Vatican I (1870) in Pastor Aeternus proclaimed the dogma on papal infallibility and this was reiterated in Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 25).
Some theologians assume that only papal dogmas are infallible, a gross error.
From Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus), for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1); and a category 2 truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

Through Google, you can easily access Vatican documents especially *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I, and Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.

We assent to dogma and doctrine which the Church teaches through Her Ecumenical Councils and the Popes, and to the Bishops when they teach what the Church teaches.