Infallible Authorities?

[Donald45]

Consider this from a Protestant anti-Catholic website:
Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.
Any thoughts, Catholics? Thanks in advance.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[Texas_Roofer]

My guess is the author does not know the Magisterium exists or how it functions. Many Protestants live under the concept the Preacher is incharge, and thus do not understand how the Priest has such limited authority. Protestants often think a new Pope means a new direction which is incorrect.

A place to start might be canons 2032 - 2040

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a3.htm

 

[LMP]

Consider this from a Protestant anti-Catholic website:
Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.
Any thoughts, Catholics? Thanks in advance.

Gaudium de veritate,
Don
+T+

Well, I was just studying Genesis and what a person reads another person might read differently, not to mention all the translations. Just one word in one verse causes so many thoughts, disagreements, questions. The scriptures are like white light, made up of 256 to infinity of colors. All of them can’t be infallible individually, but the mystery of the white light is infallible.

 

[WindGirl]

Consider this from a Protestant anti-Catholic website:
Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.
Any thoughts, Catholics? Thanks in advance.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

I’m on the site where you got that and I just read it not too long ago. Just because it disagrees with Catholicism, doesn’t make it anti-Catholic, it makes it anti-Catholicism. There’s a difference.

 

[Luke65]

Hmm. Well, here’s one reason for the Church to proclaim Her infallibility: I heard a Protestant stumble onto the truth once on a certain Christian blogsite. He said what good is an infallible Bible if there’s no infallible interpreter. To which I replied: it’s too bad God didn’t think of that! For some reason, there was no reply - not by any of the Protestants on that forum.

God knows what He’s doing! :bowdown:

 

[Just_Lurking]

Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.

This is an argument that is usually used against Protestants: The very decision one must make regarding which infallible books belong in the table of contents of the Bible is itself a FALLIBLE decision.

The answer to both of these paradoxes is that the Holy Spirit which is in each believer guides that believer to recognize those infallible things which truly come from God, even though they are conveyed through men.

 

[NonCatholic]

There is only one infallible authority; I think all of us know Who that is. There are things in Scripture that we cannot fully understand, but one should expect that from a divinely inspired book. However, the message of salvation is clear in the person of Christ Jesus, which is the most important aspect.

 

[bookgirl32]

Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

Well, for starters, it ACCOMPLISHED THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE SCRIPTURAL CANON, therefore the infallibility of the Scriptures themselves.
​

​

 

[bookgirl32]

There is only one infallible authority; I think all of us know Who that is. There are things in Scripture that we cannot fully understand, but one should expect that from a divinely inspired book. However, the message of salvation is clear in the person of Christ Jesus, which is the most important aspect.

Why then did God not only inspire the (Catholic) sripture writers to include only what you consider to be the message of salvation?
What was the point of the rest of it?

 

[thistle]

There is only one infallible authority; I think all of us know Who that is. There are things in Scripture that we cannot fully understand, but one should expect that from a divinely inspired book. However, the message of salvation is clear in the person of Christ Jesus, which is the most important aspect.

Christ gave his authority to Peter and the Apostles after he established the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit determined what books would make up the Bible and you use the New Testament determined by the Catholic Church.
Also don’t forget the New Testament was written by the first Catholics.

 

[neophyte]

…Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision…

It most certainly CAN be denied. It’s a decision based on historical evidence, objective facts that can be evaluated using the rules of logic by which we are able to reach decisions that are guaranteed to be correct.

He might as well claim that the decision that 2+2=4 is fallible.

 

[mardukm]

Consider this from a Protestant anti-Catholic website:
Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.
Any thoughts, Catholics? Thanks in advance.

Gaudium de veritate,

This argument does not originate from Protestantism. It originates from the heresy of modernism which states (among its tenets) that we can never know objective Truth.

That Protestants have co-opted this argument demonstrates just how low they have sunk. They have aligned themselves with the enemies of Truth itself.

In any case, if they take it to its logical conclusion, then the infallibility of the Bible they hold so dear would also not do them any good.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Some of you guys are confusing infallibility with free will, they are not the same. An infallible proclamation as the assumption of Mary does not override the free will of the people. The author and a few posters are confusing the two issues.

Since Protestants exists man is not infallible concerning religious sources.

Since atheists exist man is not infallible concerning religion.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.

Some teachings of the Magisterium are infallible; other teachings of the Magisterium are non-infallible (subject to limited possibility of error). Decisions of the temporal authority are fallible. Infallibility is not claimed for the Church as a whole or for all that the Church and its leaders and members do and say.

Decisions are not infallible, because decisions are not teachings. The argument is irrelevant to the infallibility of teachings.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Consider this from a Protestant anti-Catholic website:
Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.
Any thoughts, Catholics? Thanks in advance.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

There are multile questions here - all illogically formed.

Q:
**Would it not be best to simply drop references to the alleged infallibility of the RCC? **
A: Objectively speaking - NO.

Additional Comments:
“Best for who?” Best for those opposed to the notion of absolute and objective truth and a single Christian faith under one God and one Apostolic leader? Would it not be best for non-Catholic’s alleging themselves to be “Christian” to simply drop all pretenses of being of one faith and one accord and admit that the bible is not self teaching?

Q:
What exactly does this accomplish that is not already accomplished by the infallibility of the Scriptures?

A: The assumptions in this question are themselves fallable therefor the question is disordered. Scripture is only infallable when it it TAUGHT from an authoritative apostolic teaching.

Additional Comments:
What is accomplished by fallible men in alleging the popular secular myth that scripture without authoritative teaching is infallable? This is a non-sequitur. How can fallible men declare something to be infallable?

What is accomplished in formally declaring papal infallability in the very narrow area of formal Catholic teachings on “faith and morals” is exercising the ecclesial authority given to The Church by The Lord. Thus we can objectively know “those who are with us and those who are against us” by those who choose to follow somone else’s secular teaching to seperate themselves from The Church.

Assertion:
Even granting ALL concessions to Rome, it cannot be denied that the very decision one must make regarding which infallible authority to follow is itself a FALLIBLE decision.

Response:
This is a disordered assertion made by a person who does not believe in infallibility - which is itself irrational and self-contradictory. “Granting all concessions” to The Holy See requires obedience and subscription to Church Teaching. Therefor the assertion is clearly insincere since the person is trying to take back the concessions he granted. Further, logical disorder is seen in the underlying assumption that there can be no objective truth since by definition “authority” implies a singular standard. Where there is a system that assumes multiple authorities (or no authority) there is a system that assumes multiple truths and chaos - that is an illogical assumption.

The premise that all Christians hope in is that there is only ONE TRUTH - not legions of truth (as contradicted by the 32,000+ seperate Protestant denominational sects all teaching different truths). Christianity was not conceived to be a flee market of competing ideals and truths with each booth free to distill their own truth from the same well spring (“the bible”?). The neo-Christian phenomena of Protestantism just proves through its disorder that only one ecclesial authority can exist. That authority is an “ecclesial office” made up of divinely chosen men (the apostolic succession). Authority does not exist in and of itself in “the bible” but rather it is in the corpus of “The Church” and ecclesial authority originally given by Christ Himself (as mentioned in the bible) and passed on to successive bishops through physical “laying on of hands” and apostolic blessing.

The only logical notion the questioner puts forth are that people can make bad decisions in following the wrong faith. But this has nothing do to with invalidating the notion of infallable authority. Is the assertor trying to claim that the apostolic authority itself could be deceived by following its own original teachings given by Christ Himself and The Apostles? Or is the assertor trying to admit that some can be deceived by false teachers (non-Catholics) just as Jesus warned?

James

 

[Donald45]

I’m on the site where you got that and I just read it not too long ago. Just because it disagrees with Catholicism, doesn’t make it anti-Catholic, it makes it anti-Catholicism. There’s a difference.

Perhaps to you. However, not in the particular sense in which the term “anti-Catholic” is typically used. “Anti-” (“against”) + “Catholic” (that which distinguishes Catholicism and Catholics from other religio-cultural traditions"). Thus, “anti-Catholic” denotes arguments and opinions that stand “against that which is distinctively Catholic.” This is the sense in which the term is commonly used within Catholicism itself.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

 

[NonCatholic]

Perhaps to you. However, not in the particular sense in which the term “anti-Catholic” is typically used. “Anti-” (“against”) + “Catholic” (that which distinguishes Catholicism and Catholics from other religio-cultural traditions"). Thus, “anti-Catholic” denotes arguments and opinions that stand “against that which is distinctively Catholic.” This is the sense in which the term is commonly used within Catholicism itself.

Based on this rationale, any website, for example, that is strictly adhering to Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21is considered “anti-Catholic”. I know, because I recently received a warning for that very offense. I was told the site was anti-Catholic, but in the sense that the site does not believe in divine revelation outside of God’s Word, then I guess they are correct.

 

[NonCatholic]

Why then did God not only inspire the (Catholic) sripture writers to include only what you consider to be the message of salvation?
What was the point of the rest of it?

First, God did not inspire the “Catholic” scripture writers unless you you believe both the OT and NT are written by “Catholics”. I’m not sure what you mean by “Catholic Scripture Writers”???

Second, my opinion on what Scripture teaches on salvation or any other topic, would be of no use, even to myself, but God, in His love for mankind has revealed it in His word and it is not confusing.

Finally, God has chosen to show many examples of how we should live as Christians and has chosen to reveal how it everything began and how it will end, I’m glad He included all of this because we would have many more questions plaguing us for a lifetime. The Bible is always pointing to Christ, if we had nothing else except for what Christ said, it would be more than enough to have the knowledge of salvation in Him.

Do a NT word study, just on 3 words…call, called and calling; it may shocking to some.

 

[WindGirl]

Perhaps to you. However, not in the particular sense in which the term “anti-Catholic” is typically used. “Anti-” (“against”) + “Catholic” (that which distinguishes Catholicism and Catholics from other religio-cultural traditions"). Thus, “anti-Catholic” denotes arguments and opinions that stand “against that which is distinctively Catholic.” This is the sense in which the term is commonly used within Catholicism itself.

Gaudium de veritate,

Don
+T+

I take the term to mean that one is against individial Catholic people, thus anti-Catholic. Whereas the term anti-Catholicism truthfully tells what we’re anti about. Not people, but the religion and it’s teachings. Many Catholics like to use the term anti-Catholic in an accusatory manner so as to put non-Catholic Christians on the defensive and get them to feel bad and try to defend themselves. I just prefer the term anti-Catholicism for that reason and it’s closer to the truth than the other term. Just my viewpoint of course.

 

[bookgirl32]

First, God did not inspire the “Catholic” scripture writers unless you you believe both the OT and NT are written by “Catholics”. I’m not sure what you mean by “Catholic Scripture Writers”???

So the New Testament was apparently written by Jews? That logic makes no sense. God inspired who He inspired. God also established a Church, the Catholic Church, on Earth. The writers of the Old Testament were Jewish, the writers of the New Testament were Catholic. The Church that canonized the Scriptures, is Catholic.

Second, my opinion on what Scripture teaches on salvation or any other topic, would be of no use, even to myself, but God, in His love for mankind has revealed it in His word and it is not confusing.

If it’s not confusing, then why does everyone disagree on it? (Other than Catholics, of course).

Finally, God has chosen to show many examples of how we should live as Christians and has chosen to reveal how it everything began and how it will end, I’m glad He included all of this because we would have many more questions plaguing us for a lifetime. The Bible is always pointing to Christ, if we had nothing else except for what Christ said, it would be more than enough to have the knowledge of salvation in Him.

So now the apostles’ teachings are good, but not necessary? Tell me, why is it that people can’t seem to agree on how salvation is accomplished, if it’s so NOT confusing?

Do a NT word study, just on 3 words…call, called and calling; it may shocking to some.

Sorry, I prefer to read the Bible in context, not verse by verse.