Infallible list of infallible teachings

[Philthy]

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. If one must assent unconditionally, that means necessarily that one must assent without question, without testing the authority using what has been inspired by God. That puts what has been inspired on a lower level than the RCC.

You’ve misrepresented my position. The assent to authority is not unconditional; it is conditioned upon the absence of a direct, personal revelation from God; and/or the absence of a clear dictate of conscience.
Additionally you once again have placed the personal interpretation of Scripture of the individual as an “inspired by God” means of testing authority. I don’t believe that the personal interpretation of Scripture has ever held a place higher than the authority granted to the divinely appointed leaders within the Church; not during Apostolic times, not during early Church history and at no time subsequent to that.

 

[Koineman]

I can appreciate your reasoning in arriving at these questions/conclusions, but I believe you are overlooking something fairly fundamental. When you posit that “Ifsomething is fallible, that means it’s open to question…” I can’t help but wonder, “ open to question” by whom? Me? You? There is a hierarchy of authority in such issues. I’m not in a position of authority – because God has not given me that authority - to decide independently whether a teaching is in error. I have a responsibility to “be subject to the presbyters” (1 Pet 5:5). Now don’t get me wrong – I feel the desire to “make my own rules” at times, but I recognize it for what it is…pride.

I’ve addressed this issue earlier. But just as a side note, let me say that just because someone questions what an authority states does not HAVE to mean that the root of that is pride. It could be, but not necessarily. It could also be that the person doing the questioning value his soul greatly.

Scripture does tell us to “examine everything carefully” (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bereans were called noble because they tested even what the apostles taught by comparing it with Scripture. Paul, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, told the Galatian believers that anyone who brings another gospel–even an apostle or an angel–let him be accursed. He could not expect them to do that unless he also expected them to exercise discernment as to whether a particular message is another gospel.

Yes, see point one. The infallibility of the statement is not the source of its obligatory nature, the hierarchy of authority is. Again, apart from a direct revelation by God or a clear dictate of conscience we are obligated to obey those whom God has placed in positions of authority over us

So everyone can know to obey it! I hope this is starting to make sense…

First, I don’t recall asking that question. I looked through this whole thread and could not find it. Could you tell me the number of the post you got this from?

At any rate, it’s not making sense because you’re contradicting yourself. You said that we are expected to obey because of the authority of the one doing the teaching, not because of its infallibility. Now you’re saying that we can know to obey it because of its infallibility. But according to you, we ALREADY know to obey it because of the authority of the hierarchy and because God has not placed us in a position of authority.

Authoritative? I’m not sure I know what you mean by that. Authoritative is not quite the same as having authority.

The bible can be “authoritative” but does not have the ability to exercise authority. For example, Scripture says that in reference to the bread at the last supper Christ said, “This is my body”. What did he mean by that? Can the bible tell us “authoritatively” what was meant by that? Can it exercise authority in telling us all of what was meant by that statement? No it can not. It cannot exercise authority. And with that realization it’s time to “turn the tables” a bit and ask you the question you asked regarding infalliblity: If Scripture can’t tells us authoritatively what was meant by those words, what is the point of it being recorded at all?

If the Scriptures don’t go into detail about something, then it’s because it’s not a detail that we need to know. We’re told what we are to do in that passage: Do that in remembrance of Christ. One can do that without having to know the full details of what he meant.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Koineman]

You’ve misrepresented my position. The assent to authority is not unconditional; it is conditioned upon the absence of a direct, personal revelation from God; and/or the absence of a clear dictate of conscience.

I should have been clearer on what I meant by “unconditional.” I meant accepting what an authority teaches hands down, without any testing of it.

Additionally you once again have placed the personal interpretation of Scripture of the individual as an “inspired by God” means of testing authority.

See the biblical references I pointed out in my other post regarding the Bereans, Gal. 1, and 1 Thess. 5:21.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Koineman:

Thank you; I already know about them. Again, my question remains: Why make any infallible response to heresies since all church declarations are to be believed without question?

I don’t think anyone in this thread has actually said what you are saying.

What was said is that all of the Church teachings are to be given our assent. There may be some teachings that are not too clear to us for some reason, and we are free to investigate what exactly the Church is saying, so that we can give our assent. Some times, a teaching is to be understood in a certain context. IOW, our conscience will be our ultimate guide. But the principal is that we assent to the teaching as we understand it. It’s not a blind acceptance of anything and everything, which seems to be your worry.

As has already been said, the “infallible” teachings are more an exercise for theologians than the ordinary layman.

If you understood the history of infallibility, you would realize that it was always in place from the time of the Apostles. Even before Vatican I, the Church was infallible, even though there were never any lists of infallible teachings. The whole premise of infallibility is based on the promise of Jesus Christ to be always with His Church to the very end, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Do you suppose the early Christians asked St. Paul for a list of infallible teachings? It is too irreverent to imagine. That sort on insolence was brought to us by the Reformation.

Lastly and for the third time, I must repeat, that your first principle is that Scripture alone is Revelation. Catholics (and early Christians) believed that their Church and its teachings were Revelation. We also believe that Scriptures are Revelation, but that it is a sealed book without the Revelation of the Church to make it understandable.

One last point, Catholics believe their religion is a Divine one, founded by God and guided by God, every day everywhere. Protestants are only familiar with man-made religions, so they depend entirely on the Scriptures for Revelation. It is a first principle with them.

 

[Koineman]

By my count (as I expressed in my first reply), it has happened only once. And JP2 made his “pastoral reasons” clear.

What were those “pastoral reasons”?

Isn’t it reasonable for me to say, then, that when Protestants disagree about the Bible, it’s not that the Bible is insufficient, but rather simply that some Protestants “are mistaken about some things”?

Oh, yes. That is perfectly reasonable. The difference is that protestants have no authority apart from their own individual interpretation of Scripture.

They have the Scriptures themselves as the authority. Now if you say, “Protestants must still rely on their own interpretation of those Scriptures,” then I say, So what? Catholics have the same problem. They must rely on their own private interpretation of Catholic statements, documents, etc. You can’t ask JP2 what he meant in any given part of his writings. You can’t even ask the current pope what is meant by a particular teaching in the CCC. You have to go to a priest or bishop, but even then, you are just relying on their own interpretation of those teachings.

Catholics have an absolute authority to which they are bound to adhere.

So do Protestants: the Bible.

When protestants disagree (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, etc, etc, etc) there is no absolute authority to determine who is wrong and who is right.

Sure there is: the Bible. Don’t say, “That doesn’t work, because they’re all using their own private interpretation,” because as I pointed out above, Catholics have the same issue.

 

[Koineman]

I really get the feeling that you’ve not done so, even though you think you’ve done so.

I find this to be a common approach taken by Catholic apologists when dealing with Protestants: claim that the Protestant doesn’t really understand Catholic teaching, or has not really studied the matter enough, etc.

Trust me, I went through a period of time when I was actually pro-Catholic and wanted to believe the teachings of the RCC. I didn’t just go by hearsay of what Catholics say on internet forums. I read the Council of Trent very carefully regarding its teaching on justification, which, for me, was the most important issue.

I think you’ve taken the writings and talks of others who distort Catholic teaching, and re-presented arguments formulated by them which while sincere, are based on a misrepresentation of history and Catholic teachings.

I bring up those “talks of others” in order to drive home to Catholics that there is huge disagreement among Catholics about Catholic teachings, and that disagreement and confusion remain in spite of the claim to have an absolute authority to clarify things.

How do I know that you are not just another of those people who distorts Catholic teaching?

 

[Tomster]

I don’t think anyone in this thread has actually said what you are saying.

What was said is that all of the Church teachings are to be given our assent. There may be some teachings that are not too clear to us for some reason, and we are free to investigate what exactly the Church is saying, so that we can give our assent. Some times, a teaching is to be understood in a certain context. IOW, our conscience will be our ultimate guide. But the principal is that we assent to the teaching as we understand it. It’s not a blind acceptance of anything and everything, which seems to be your worry.

As has already been said, the “infallible” teachings are more an exercise for theologians than the ordinary layman.

If you understood the history of infallibility, you would realize that it was always in place from the time of the Apostles. Even before Vatican I, the Church was infallible, even though there were never any lists of infallible teachings. The whole premise of infallibility is based on the promise of Jesus Christ to be always with His Church to the very end, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Do you suppose the early Christians asked St. Paul for a list of infallible teachings? It is too irreverent to imagine. That sort on insolence was brought to us by the Reformation.

Lastly and for the third time, I must repeat, that your first principle is that Scripture alone is Revelation. Catholics (and early Christians) believed that their Church and its teachings were Revelation. We also believe that Scriptures are Revelation, but that it is a sealed book without the Revelation of the Church to make it understandable.

One last point, Catholics believe their religion is a Divine one, founded by God and guided by God, every day everywhere. Protestants are only familiar with man-made religions, so they depend entirely on the Scriptures for Revelation. It is a first principle with them.

Just a quick “jump-in” here.

Regarding your last paragraph. For our non-Catholic friends, Protestantism, in fact, replaced the Church with the Bible. It’s just that simple.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

They have the Scriptures themselves as the authority. Now if you say, “Protestants must still rely on their own interpretation of those Scriptures,” then I say, So what? Catholics have the same problem. They must rely on their own private interpretation of Catholic statements, documents, etc. You can’t ask JP2 what he meant in any given part of his writings. You can’t even ask the current pope what is meant by a particular teaching in the CCC. You have to go to a priest or bishop, but even then, you are just relying on their own interpretation of those teachings.

So do Protestants: the Bible.

I think you miss the underlying point in objections of the kind to which you respond above.

It is this.

(1) The Reformation involves a protest against a preexisting teaching and practice regarding how God’s word is transmitted. I.e., the Catholic (East and West) and EO view that God’s word is transmitted normatively and authoritatively by the combined and organically-related process of Scripture and Tradition in the Church (conscious of its historical continuity with the apostles and Pentecost) (STC).

(2) The Protestant view proposed is sola scriptura (SS). “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.” Tradition(s), etc., can be considered, but the aforementioned principle is the ultimate authority.

(3) (a) Now here’s the point to the objections to which you respond.
The Bible, functionally speaking, is just another book on the shelf–paper with ink stains–until it is read and interpreted. Any text is actualized as communication only in reading and interpreting. So by the very nature of using a written text the definition is really (and cannot be other than) SS means:
my interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2013 is the only and sufficient rule of faith.

(b) This leads to the factual question: is the above formulation the method God chose to hand down his word authoritatively and normatively through history or is it STC? Has the Reformation protest of the preexisting method (STC) shown that it is more reasonable to adopt SS over STC?

The CC and OEC answer is this: Neither Scripture (especially the teachings and practice of the NT authors taken as a whole, nor the fathers, nor the Ecumenical Councils teach SS.

(4) So the point of the objection is not to deny that any text–including ecclesiastical documents–need to be interpreted. The CC has always acknowledged that they do. The point is to make explicit what SS actually asserts and then to see how the evidence stacks up regarding whether it or STC is taught and portrayed by the NT authors taken as a whole, the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils. I use these as the evidence to determine what method God established to hand on His word.

 

[Koineman]

(1) The Reformation involves a protest against a preexisting teaching and practice regarding how God’s word is transmitted. I.e., the Catholic (East and West) and EO view that God’s word is transmitted normatively and authoritatively by the combined and organically-related process of Scripture and Tradition in the Church (conscious of its historical continuity with the apostles and Pentecost) (STC).

(2) The Protestant view proposed is sola scriptura (SS). “The Bible is the only and sufficient rule of faith.” Tradition(s), etc., can be considered, but the aforementioned principle is the ultimate authority.

(3) (a) Now here’s the point to the objections to which you respond.
The Bible, functionally speaking, is just another book on the shelf–paper with ink stains–until it is read and interpreted.

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, this objection is pointless since Catholics have the same issue. You cannot ask the pope for clarification directly, so in the end you are left with dead documents and your own private interpretation. The dismal illusion here, therefore, is that Catholics mistakenly think they are above that problem.

(b) This leads to the factual question: is the above formulation the method God chose to hand down his word authoritatively and normatively through history or is it STC?

This is odd. God doesn’t hand down His word through Sola Scriptura, if that’s what you meant to say.

The CC and OEC answer is this: Neither Scripture (especially the teachings and practice of the NT authors taken as a whole, nor the fathers, nor the Ecumenical Councils teach SS.

Well, that would require a lengthy, in-depth analysis of writings of the church fathers, not to mention Scripture. Both sides will produce texts that they allege support their view, so we’d get nowhere.

 

[Eufrosnia]

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, this objection is pointless since Catholics have the same issue. You cannot ask the pope for clarification directly, so in the end you are left with dead documents and your own private interpretation. The dismal illusion here, therefore, is that Catholics mistakenly think they are above that problem.

This is odd. God doesn’t hand down His word through Sola Scriptura, if that’s what you meant to say.

Well, that would require a lengthy, in-depth analysis of writings of the church fathers, not to mention Scripture. Both sides will produce texts that they allege support their view, so we’d get nowhere.

Mr. Koineman, you seemed to have not addressed my last post to you. Would you care to address it? Because in that post, it was shown to you that you have been engaged in illogical thinking already.

You can find my posts here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10732042&postcount=46

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10732042&postcount=47

Also, are you unaware that if both the Catholic and Protestant suffers from the same problem, the actual answer is that one must abandon both? Because it seems to me like you are under some illusion that this debate here will somehow justify your faith in Protestantism. Surely, you understand that it is a logical error?

 

[Filioque]

Just a quick “jump-in” here.

Regarding your last paragraph. For our non-Catholic friends, Protestantism, in fact, replaced the Church with the Bible. It’s just that simple.

To be more precise, Protestantism replaces the Church and the Scriptures with the myth of Private Interpretation of the Scriptures. I say Myth because the majority of Protestants are taught that individual believers may freely interpret the Scriptures only aided by the Holy Ghost. The reality is something different, as well as being wholly unscriptural.

Most Protestants like it or not are broken down into two opposing Theological Camps, Arminan, and Calvanist. While told that they are given the interpretation of the Scriptures by the Holy Ghost, they break down in to the interpretation that their denomination teaches, (even if they claim to be non-denominational.) You see frequently the arguments of one group against the other. Go into a good scholarly Protestant Book store, and you will find the shelves lined with commentaries and tomes with the writings of the “greats” of Protestant thought. Many theologies are based on one or a handful of primary Proof texts, which put the rest of Scripture into a subserviant role, either by ignoring, or diminishing the rest of the Bible to support the primary reason the sect was started. Some end up mixing interpretations and schools of thought into a new school, but it is as Archbishop Sheen described new names for old errors.

Now in the Scripture we see a different idea of what Jesus came to do and teach. Yes as Catholics the primary role of the Incarnation was that He be the one source of our salvation, that we be redeemed by the cross, and that He overcome death and open for us the gates of Heaven. But the Scriptures tell us how He does that not just by the cross, but how He applies that sacrifice to us. With regard to the Church, we see not an invisible body of believers who all hold divergent doctrines and the independent rights to belive as the “Spirit” moves them, but a unified Body of Christ. Scripture tells us that there is a head to that Body, and that we when incorporated into that body all have important roles. Not all are the head. We see that St. Paul in the passage which was proported to show how the Church could fall away and others could test it, condemn it as being in error and start anew is really one which has after the Ascension which we just celebrated Peter and the Apostles as the head and those whom they have appointed laying hands on to be the judges of the purity of Doctrine. We see that when Ananias and Saphara lied to the Apostles that they were not just decieving men, but as the leaders of the Church attempting to lie to the Holy Ghost. We see in various verses that the Church is founded on Christ Jesus, the chief cornerstone which the builders rejected, and we see that it is founded on Simon who is renamed Peter when he is given the office, and we see that the Church is built on the Apostles. The average non-Catholic will assent to Jesus and himself as being the Church, but overlook or try to minimize Peter and the Apostles because they have had implanted into their doctrinal psyche the idea that only one can be true. But scripturally all three are true. Peter, and the Apostles have the authority given them by Jesus.

Jesus is true God and true Man. The priests of the Temple claimed he was a blashiemer when He forgave the sins of his fellow Jews, as only God could do that. We as Catholics, and most who call themselves Protestant or “Christian” believe Jesus is God, and has that Authority. In the Scriptures it is very clear that Jesus having that authority gave His authority to the Apostles to forgive sins. He did so by doing something very Jewish, laying hands on their heads, and breathing on them. In preforming this rite, He showed that not just by His word, but also by His actions they as His representitives now had His Authority. Not an empty title but a real authority to do what He did. Further in Scripture He tells the Apostles that those who hear them, hear Him. While we do all share in the mission to share the truths Christ Jesus gave the world, we see no evidence of this being a blanket statement to all believer’s have the authority to determine for themselves and come to the definitive conclusion that one doctrine or any of the variant private interpretations (which scripture warns quite severly against 2 Peter 1:20) it is the duty of those who are appointed to guard and interpret the Faith. We are told to submit to our elders in Faith, the leaders of the Church. A leadership which we clearly see in St. Paul is given by one in authority through the laying on of hands.

 

[Filioque]

(Cont) St. Paul himself is an example of one who upon his conversion does a few things which modern Protestantism overlooks. He submits to the local authority of the Church for Baptism. After about two years of learning, and prayer, he went to Jerusalem not to tell the Apostles what the Gospel was but to submit to the lawful authority of the Church before he himself could be sent (Apostolos) to teach authentic doctrine. He does not simply proclaim as an Apostle unilaterally but goes back to Jerusalem for the Council and argues his point with the other Apostles at which point they, not just whomever is inspired decide aided by the Holy Ghost what the practice will be.

Long winded I know, but the Church described in the NT is not one where we as individuals make up our mind based on private interpretation of the Scriptures, what we will or will not assent to. But a corporate body in which there are those who are at the head, those who have other lesser functions so that the whole will work and proclaim Christ Jesus. We become incorporated into the one body and take instruction or give instruction according to the roles we play. If the head tells us to stick our hands into the fire, we do have the right to question, and disobey what we know to be unsafe. We do also have the obligation not to follow blindly, but to learn not just what we must believe but why. With such tools as the CCC as a starting point, which will hopefully encourage us to learn more, (and filled with footnotes which show the biblical source of the moral or dogmatic teachings) we will hopefully learn more.

I’d be interested to know (to the originator of this thread) when you when you say you have studied the documents of the Council of Trent, (a great council indeed, but not one to be read in a vacuum.) Are your readings of them based on a reading and private interpretation, without the aid of history, and are they guided by an interpretation of them from Catholic, or non-Catholic sources, or both? I ask because I’ve met more than my share of Catholics and non-Catholics who have been influenced to some very strange conslusions as to what Trent actually taught because of either reading the statements of the Council with no background, or “guided” by others who do not interpret it in a Catholic sense.

One last thing for anyone who is still awake after my lengthly discourse. As some parts of the body can be in a state of dysfunction (see also that there are tares in the wheat field etc) it is possible for some to due to improper understanding of the teaching authority of the Church to make statements like the information in the CCC is not infallible, but the reality is the moral teachings and doctrine of the Church as we have seen in Scriputre and in practice is not a simple matter of personal interpretation, but rather a matter settled by Christ Jesus when He gave the Apostles authority over the Church.

 

[Koineman]

Also, are you unaware that if both the Catholic and Protestant suffers from the same problem, the actual answer is that one must abandon both?

No, I don’t think that is a necessary conclusion. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that Scripture is inspired and therefore divinely authoritative. We can then use that corpus of Scripture to determine reasonably whether any given church:

• preaches another gospel and
• has added binding teachings to what the apostles taught, which the apostles never themselves taught.

Both of those criteria indicate clearly whether a church should be considered apostolic and, therefore, worthy of acceptance. I have done that with the RCC, and I do that with any Protestant church I decide to attend. I have found that the church I attend is not guilty of either of these tragic errors, whereas the RCC is.

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, I don’t think that is a necessary conclusion. Both Catholics and Protestants agree that Scripture is inspired and therefore divinely authoritative. We can then use that corpus of Scripture to determine reasonably whether any given church:

• preaches another gospel and
• has added binding teachings to what the apostles taught, which the apostles never themselves taught.

Both of those criteria indicate clearly whether a church should be considered apostolic and, therefore, worthy of acceptance. I have done that with the RCC, and I do that with any Protestant church I decide to attend. I have found that the church I attend is not guilty of either of these tragic errors, whereas the RCC is.

We do not agree on why we believe Scripture is true. The “Why” is important because it settles the matter if there is someone else that you need to assent to as an authority (regardless of how you feel of its efficacy) or whether you can just have the Bible only. If both positions are incorrect, meaning that there is no reason to assent to “Scripture as the Word of God”, the correct thing to do is scrap both. Not believe Protestantism, yes?

So you still have to prove that

1. Catholic reasoning is invalid
2. Protestant position on assent to the claim “Scripture is Word of God” is reasonable

Otherwise you are getting nowhere and this debate is just a debate between two fairy tale positions that may or may not be true.

 

[Koineman]

I’d be interested to know (to the originator of this thread) when you when you say you have studied the documents of the Council of Trent, (a great council indeed, but not one to be read in a vacuum.) Are your readings of them based on a reading and private interpretation, without the aid of history, and are they guided by an interpretation of them from Catholic, or non-Catholic sources, or both? I ask because I’ve met more than my share of Catholics and non-Catholics who have been influenced to some very strange conslusions as to what Trent actually taught because of either reading the statements of the Council with no background, or “guided” by others who do not interpret it in a Catholic sense.

I am aware of the historical context of the Council of Trent. In addition to that, I have read the Council of Trent carefully. I have read both Protestant and RC teachings on justification to have a grasp of both. That is enough for me to come to a clear understanding of what Trent taught. Now if you’re going to say that I cannot have a clear understanding of Trent’s teaching on justification without also consulting numerous other books (since you mentioned reading it “in a vacuum”), then I’m afraid discussing it would get us nowhere, since any disagreement I make would be met with something like “You don’t get it. You’re still confused. You need to read this book or that article.” So It would be an exercise in futility. Please note that I am not saying that it’s okay to read a historical document in a vacuum. What I’m concerned about is having to deal with the wearisome, oft-repeated Catholic claim that we Protestants don’t know what we’re talking about, we don’t understand Catholicism, we’re confused, and the like, no matter how clearly the Protestant demonstrates he has, in fact, studied the matter sufficiently.

And if the above is indeed what you would end up doing, please be aware what this implies for Catholics who want to understand Trent: They, too, would have to read all kinds of supplemental literature, but then, of course, they would be relying on private interpretation.

OTOH, if you don’t plan to come at this in such a way, I’d be happy to dive into the sixth session of Trent with you on another thread.

 

[Koineman]

We do not agree on why we believe Scripture is true.

That is no obstacle. Let me come at this from a different angle:

The RCC claims to preach the true gospel.
The RCC claims to have preserved the teachings of the apostles.
If the RCC has failed in either or both of those areas, then it is not apostolic.

You don’t even have to be a Christian to follow this approach. It is simply examining whether a claim to faithfully pass on original teaching is true. That’s just plain reason: If a person claims to be a faithful messenger but it is shown that they have distorted the message or added to it, then by all reason it is shown to be an untrustworthy messenger.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, this objection is pointless since Catholics have the same issue. You cannot ask the pope for clarification directly, so in the end you are left with dead documents and your own private interpretation. The dismal illusion here, therefore, is that Catholics mistakenly think they are above that problem.

It seems that you ignored or completely missed point (4) as well as my opening statement.

This is odd. God doesn’t hand down His word through Sola Scriptura, if that’s what you meant to say.

So if for you God does not hand down his word through the Bible alone (i.e., by the individual’s own interpretation of the Bible alone whenever and wherever they exist in history), how does He? Clearly STC is rejected in the Reformation protest as the method. It is indisputable that the factual question involved here is: which method did God choose to hand on His word: by STC or by the Bible alone?

Well, that would require a lengthy, in-depth analysis of writings of the church fathers, not to mention Scripture. Both sides will produce texts that they allege support their view, so we’d get nowhere.

Wow! You’ve just written off any possibility of theological inquiry. Do you use this approach for other theological questions? How do you come to any doctrinal knowledge or the settling of theological differences of this kind except by, at least, Scripture . . . perhaps even the fathers and the Councils?

The Councils sure as anything don’t teach SS. I don’t know about you, but I’m all for in depth analysis of Scripture and the fathers. How else are theological questions of this kind resolved? What else does one have in coming to a conclusion here?

The way it works is that after both sides present their data (texts) it doesn’t end there where we throw up our hands in despair of finding an answer. The next step is that the cumulative import of the texts in context is assessed. Then we do get somewhere.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I am aware of the historical context of the Council of Trent. In addition to that, I have read the Council of Trent carefully. I have read both Protestant and RC teachings on justification to have a grasp of both. That is enough for me to come to a clear understanding of what Trent taught. Now if you’re going to say that I cannot have a clear understanding of Trent’s teaching on justification without also consulting numerous other books (since you mentioned reading it “in a vacuum”), then I’m afraid discussing it would get us nowhere, since any disagreement I make would be met with something like “You don’t get it. You’re still confused. You need to read this book or that article.” So It would be an exercise in futility. Please note that I am not saying that it’s okay to read a historical document in a vacuum. What I’m concerned about is having to deal with the wearisome, oft-repeated Catholic claim that we Protestants don’t know what we’re talking about, we don’t understand Catholicism, we’re confused, and the like, no matter how clearly the Protestant demonstrates he has, in fact, studied the matter sufficiently.

And if the above is indeed what you would end up doing, please be aware what this implies for Catholics who want to understand Trent: They, too, would have to read all kinds of supplemental literature, but then, of course, they would be relying on private interpretation.

OTOH, if you don’t plan to come at this in such a way, I’d be happy to dive into the sixth session of Trent with you on another thread.

If you manage to come to an understanding of what reformers mean by “Justification by faith alone” by reading council of Trent and Protestant sources, what makes you think a Catholic cannot understand what the Church teaches by reading much of what it has taught and consulting a certified authority to verify their understanding is correct?

It seems to me like you are not getting the actual difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. The issue is not that Protestants cant read the Bible and understand it. As long as the Protestant is literate, they can certainly read and comprehend a meaning behind what it says.

The only issue with Protestantism is that it fails to realize that one can arrive at many contradictory meanings from a text. So even in the Catholic position, given knowledge of all the councils so far and teachings, it is still possible for a Catholic to still arrive at an error meaning as well.

So the difference here is that in the Catholic case, you have a valid authority that can pronounce whether that particular meaning is correct or not. The authority is not, first and foremost, a theological one but a natural one. We cannot rely on any authority through theological reasons because that would indeed require us

1. Have knowledge of a set of Transcendent claims governing authority
2. Be capable of correctly interpreting the written propositions that were given to us (which itself leads back to the need for an authority to confirm)

Since none of us the above can be done as mere human beings, or unless God himself appeared to us, convinced us that he was God, and then proceeded to guide us step by step, we have no alternative but to rely on an authority verified through natural reason.

So the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is that Catholics have an authority to turn to whenever they want to make sure what they believe after reading the teachings, is indeed true. Protestants do not have one.

 

[Koineman]

So if for you God does not hand down his word through the Bible alone (i.e., by the individual’s own interpretation of the Bible alone whenever and wherever they exist in history), how does He? Clearly STC is rejected in the Reformation protest as the method. It is indisputable that the factual question involved here is: which method did God choose to hand on His word: by STC or by the Bible alone?

I don’t think ANY Protestant would deny that the Bible came to us through the church. But that is not what SS says. SS does not set out to show how the Bible came to us; it says it is the sole infallible authority for Christians on matters pertaining to faith and practice.

The Catholic error is to leap to the conclusion that, just because the church was the agent through whom the Bible came to us, therefore it is the only one with the authority to interpret the Bible accurately.

Well, that would require a lengthy, in-depth analysis of writings of the church fathers, not to mention Scripture. Both sides will produce texts that they allege support their view, so we’d get nowhere.

Wow! You’ve just written off any possibility of theological inquiry.

Where in the name of all reason did you get THAT from what I said? Are you just TRYING to make me look bad here? I never said that I would not do in-depth analysis of church fathers and Scriptures. I said I would not do it in the context of a Catholic-Protestant debate (hence my use of the phrase “both sides”) because it would simply be a matter of slinging quotes at one another. It is highly characteristic of discussions in which Protestants and Catholics discuss the church fathers.

 

[Koineman]

So the difference here is that in the Catholic case, you have a valid authority that can pronounce whether that particular meaning is correct or not.

I’ve already addressed this kind of reply, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself, so we’re just beating the same old dead horse. Like I said, we’re talking past each other.