Infallibility

[rinnie]

As far as Sacraments they are outward signs instituted by CHRIST to give grace. Not the Pope.

 

[Abu]

Hopeful Heretic #18
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not sufficient grounds for infallibility: would you say that the Spirit did not live within Peter after Pentecost? Did Peter not travel far and wide preaching the necessity of circumcision after Pentecost? Don’t make me laugh!

Laughter is hardly assenting to truth. The Church does not teach that the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit” produces infallibility. Infallibility in dogma and doctrine was given by Christ only to St Peter – His Supreme Vicar – and as Christ’s Church teaches, to the bishops in an Ecumenical Council when approved by St Peter’s successors, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 15, when speaking at the first Church Council at Jerusalem (A.D. 50), we know that Peter condemned circumcision and the law of Moses (Acts 15:10-11). The first Council was careful in the wording of its resolution but it endorsed Peter’s sentiments, refusing to put any unnecessary burdens on the new converts.

Acts 10-15 show that even before Paul, Peter came to see that the ceremonial laws were no longer in effect. And furthermore “Peter was the prime mover in issuing this decree” for the rest of the Church.
defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html

Unless the Church has a basis for making and confirming infallibly true statements, the Church does not have a basis for making any claims as absolutes which must be believed at all. Papal Non-Supremacy is a much older position, so how does the Church decide the Supremacy is the inspired view?

Such error shows the fallacy which tries to ignore the truths of the Gospels. Papal primacy is established by Christ as shown clearly in posts #12, #15, and this is authenticated by the Sacred Scriptures which the world has only because the Catholic Church mandated what books are the inspired Word of God, and no others. As the Word of God, the Bible as defined and given to us by the Catholic Church, emphasises the supremacy of St Peter as Christ’s chosen Vicar.

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

If the Church cannot make infallibly true statements, then the Church cannot enforce statements as being undeniably true. If it cannot enforce statements as being undeniably true, then its entire epistemology falls to pieces.

Would you deny St Paul too?
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

Yet some proclaimed heretics choose to defy Christ in His teaching, and in His Church.

 

[Darryl_B]

They say that you never respond to an accusation that wasn’t made, and if you didn’t make it then looking at how ignorant I looked in the first post I must have made it. My apologies.

Anyway–I’m not sure about the presuppositions involved with what I’m making. To me, what I’m making are simple appeals to the same Scriptures unanimously accepted as authoritative by Catholics and Protestants alike; and to things which are stated outright in it in such a way as cannot possibly be denied. My proof text I provided is the most direct, I think, but the Bible is filled from book 1 chapter 3 onward with God being distressed about it when people are deceived. Indeed, the Bible speaks of mighty prophets who fall to temptation and speak merely a few words deceptively, like Moses at the rock, and he never entered the Chosen Land because of it. So I don’t think we can argue that God is okay with false teaching just because it comes from his approved teachers. If something comes from humans, not God–and the people in this thread have said that some of the most essential teachings of the Church might come from humans, not that they do, but that it is not known with infallible certainty that they are true–then it can’t be taught as doctrine which came from God.

But the people in this thread are arguing that the Church does does not exercise a claim to infallible knowledge about even about details touching the substance of the faith; but at the same that all people in the Church are required to believe even the details not touching the substance of the faith.

I’m not sure where our different presuppositions and “lenses” come in here. If my presupposition here is my own ability to interpret the Bible, then we can say at least that I have the authority to interpret Anselm. “God is that which has all perfections.” Okay, so which is greater: to suffer people to be made to believe things which might not be true, or to condemn it? If the Church cannot make infallibly true statements, then the Church cannot enforce statements as being undeniably true. If it cannot enforce statements as being undeniably true, then its entire epistemology falls to pieces.

Actually you missed my point entirely. I will answer it for you. The thing that touched me about your citation of Scripture against the Catholic Church, was not so much your ignorance (though that may exist I dont know, you are probably better at answering that truthful more than others) and what I have been increasingly aware of lately from protestant hopefuls, is that it it used out of context, it is used inappropriately, it is used flippantly, it is used independently, and it is used maliciously, and it is used as a license.

The citation of Jesus to the Pharisees that you leaped to needs to be considered in the context of Jesus teaching. What did he not like about the Pharisees? They had a Babylonian Talmud and that gave them the power to circumvent the teaching of God. So for instance say, they could have the power to circumvent the teaching of God, and ordain female priests, they could circumvent the teaching of God, and sacrifice millions to abortion, they could circumvent the teaching of God, and endorse ssm. They could circumvent the teaching of God, and have divorce.

So, which Church, Catholic or Anglican is teaching the precepts of man?

 

[Darryl_B]

Fast for at least 1 hour before the Eucharist is an example of Catholic Church law that is not found in the Bible.

The response of individuals can be varied.

1. Nobody tells me what to do, I do what God requires of me, nothing else.
2. I don’t really want to and I don’t understand why, I will carry on the way I am but not make a fuss.
3. I don’t really want to but I will anyway, time starts now.
4. I understand why and am willingly to make that sacrifice out of the love of my Lord, and I will make it 8 hours instead.

Which soul is pleasing to God?

 

[Genesis315]

The question in the OP (essentially for a list of infallible judgments), misses the general point and purpose of the “extraordinary Magisterium.”

Books and copies of papal decrees may be lost and destroyed, etc., etc. We rely on the ordinary and universal Magisterium ordinarily–the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, catechisms; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal and concilliar definitions–the Pope’s or a Council’s ability to define the faith is called an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium for this reason. When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith, so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.

This is why in his book, the Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Cardinal Manning enunciated this principle:
Cardinal Manning:

The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation.

It should also be noted that there are not just a few papal definitions. At the First Vatican Council, when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure, the relator (charged with providing official explanations of Council documents to the bishops at the Council) said this could not be done, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:
Bishop Gasser:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

But again, we don’t need to find a list because the ordinary magisterium of the Church ordinarily suffices.

But if the Pope or a Council needs to intervene definitively to bring needed certainty and clarity, such a judgment can be known by language stating the judgment is definitive and binding on the whole Church. That’s it–it’s very simple. And as Bishop Gasser, noted, it has been done countless times.