Infallible Declarations

[BigTurkey]

I often hear Catholics say that for sola Scriptura to be true, the Bible must contain a list of the books in it. Otherwise, there is no infallible declaration of the books and no certainty that you have all of what you need and none of what you aren’t suppose to have.

Why is it then that Catholics do not need an infallible declaration of the infallible teachings of the church? I have asked before for a list of all the teachings of the Pope made ex cathedra and for the infallible teachings from councils, and the reply I have gotten is that there is not such a list (much less an infallible list). To me, the problem here is the same as the one that Catholics raise for Protestants that I discussed at the beginning of this post.

Any thoughts? Any errors in my reasoning? (Or, more accurately, what errors…? )

-Micah

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Why is it then that Catholics do not need an infallible declaration of the infallible teachings of the church?

Any thoughts? Any errors in my reasoning? (Or, more accurately, what errors…? )

-Micah

Because it is a LIVING Church, not the stereo manual that is Bible-Alone. Want to know if a teaching is infallible? Ask the authoritative apostles’ successors.

Scott

 

[Fidelis]

I often hear Catholics say that for sola Scriptura to be true, the Bible must contain a list of the books in it. Otherwise, there is no infallible declaration of the books and no certainty that you have all of what you need and none of what you aren’t suppose to have.

Actually, you are starting with a false premise since no Catholic would offer the lack of an inspired canon as sole “proof” against Sola Scriptura. It is helpful, however, for showing one of the (many) inconsistencies one must accept (or ignore) to hold Sola Scriptura.
*
Sola Scriptura *can be proved wrong in other ways: namely, that it is unbiblical (not implied or explicit in the Scriptures), unhistorical, and impractical for the average Christian. Please peruse the attached short article:

chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola5.htm

 

[Loy]

I often hear Catholics say that for sola Scriptura to be true, the Bible must contain a list of the books in it. Otherwise, there is no infallible declaration of the books and no certainty that you have all of what you need and none of what you aren’t suppose to have.

Why is it then that Catholics do not need an infallible declaration of the infallible teachings of the church? I have asked before for a list of all the teachings of the Pope made ex cathedra and for the infallible teachings from councils, and the reply I have gotten is that there is not such a list (much less an infallible list). To me, the problem here is the same as the one that Catholics raise for Protestants that I discussed at the beginning of this post.

Any thoughts? Any errors in my reasoning? (Or, more accurately, what errors…? )

-Micah

The biggest problem is that you’re comparing apples to oranges. Catholics do not believe in “Tradition Alone”, therefore the comparison fails.

The Catholic apologetic argument that you describe assumes a particular definition of Sola Scriptura, specifically one which teaches that the Bible is the sole and complete source of all revelation. If the Bible does not have a self-contained table of contents, then how would one know what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t? Therefore, one would not know what is revelation and what isn’t.

If you do not define Sola Scritura in this way, I can understand the confusion. But Catholicism does not have any corresponding belief that the Church’s infallible pronouncements are the sole and complete source of revelation. Therefore the issue of a “list” or “table of contents” is irrelevant to prove or disprove Catholic infallible teaching.