Infallible list of infallible teachings

[Koineman]

Why do you want to know (or why should a Catholic want to know)? That’s not a combative question, but a serious one. Is it to find which teachings one can plausibly dissent against?

I already answered this in another post (3 reasons).

I’m also curious about something else. As a Protestant, how would you respond if I asked you for a list of all the teachings in the bible?

That’s funny: It was that very question, asked by someone else on another thread, that prompted me to ask the question in the OP on this one.

 

[Koineman]

If it is not infallible then it is not binding upon conscience (known as assent of the heart). But it is binding upon intellect (known as assent of the mind). In other words, we are expected to say, “Well, that doesn’t sound right to me, but I will accept it because you have teaching authority.” It’s like when scientists tell us that objects can disappear from one place and reappear in another (quantum shift). It sounds crazy, but I believe it because I accept the teaching credentials of the physicists who teach it.

Thanks, David. That sheds light on this. So then I guess the question comes down to how one decides to accept the teaching credentials of a particular church body.

The difference between doctrine that has been acknowledged as infallible and that which is not is like the difference between being bound by chains or ropes. Properly secured, we cannot escape from either one. The fact that chain has a higher tensile strength is irrelevant to the person who is tied up. They both bind us equally well.

I have to wonder, then: Why bother making infallible statements at all? If all Catholic teachings are binding, and, as others have said, it shouldn’t matter at all to the average person in the pew, why make them?

The CCC is not infallible, but it is authoritative. If anyone claims that Catholics are free to dismiss ANY of its teachings, they are sadly mistaken.

Interesting. So there is disagreement among Catholics about a very important issue.

 

[Koineman]

As to why the Spirit would not move the Church to attempt to produce the hypothetical infallible list is a speculative enterprise. But one reason is obviously what was stated prior, that the infallible list would require an infallible declaration to alert the faithful to its infallible character, and then an infallible statement to validate the verifier, and so on to infinity.

Well said. Every belief system has some starting point; otherwise there is infinite regress.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well said. Every belief system has some starting point; otherwise there is infinite regress.

The starting point is an intuitive truth or a premise that one arrives at using intuitive truths i.e. Reason.

Arbitrary picking a starting point is unreasonable.

 

[Semangelof]

As a protestant looking in, and as one wishing to go farther in and if possible all the way, there are a lot more pieces to take on. A whole lot more. It can be dizzying for a protestant.

Being completely ignorant about it it is really hard to tell what is private belief, what is open, what is closed, and which pieces we must take in. I have 3 questions which I will number to make it easier to see what I’m asking.

I know it would be easier for me to know which pieces I need to take in to be a proper Catholic. A line in the sand to say “If you reach this mark you are a proper Catholic.”
**(1)**Is the CCC that line in the sand? So if I only believe in it and follow it completely and faithfully I can be a proper catholic? (mostly, see below)

I realize that it is not entirely that simple so my second question is this. I get through the CCC and pass the line. Now as things progress in the church a new piece is placed before me by a priest or above. **(2)**Where does my judgement begin and end when it comes to figuring out what to do with that new piece? **(3)**Also there are going to be times when the piece placed before me must be accepted despite my judgement so how do I recognize those times?

A lot of us are confused by ignorance about infallibility, where it begins and ends, but I think the above 3 questions are the crux of what we are really trying to understand. I can’t speak for us all, but I believe one of the hardest road blocks for us to enter is to know where the catholic church ends and where we as an individual begin. I think an understanding of those things would go a long way to bridge that gap. As a protestant we have great individual worth and ability in our churches, however through ignorance we have an image of having little worth and ability if we were a catholic. Correcting that broken image, with a clear explanation of where an individual begins and ends would make a huge difference in creating inroads toward Catholicism. If not at the very least it will help me personally on entering.

Thanks.

 

[Eufrosnia]

As a protestant looking in, and as one wishing to go farther in and if possible all the way, there are a lot more pieces to take on. A whole lot more. It can be dizzying for a protestant.

Being completely ignorant about it it is really hard to tell what is private belief, what is open, what is closed, and which pieces we must take in. I have 3 questions which I will number to make it easier to see what I’m asking.

I know it would be easier for me to know which pieces I need to take in to be a proper Catholic. A line in the sand to say “If you reach this mark you are a proper Catholic.”
**(1)**Is the CCC that line in the sand? So if I only believe in it and follow it completely and faithfully I can be a proper catholic? (mostly, see below)

I realize that it is not entirely that simple so my second question is this. I get through the CCC and pass the line. Now as things progress in the church a new piece is placed before me by a priest or above. **(2)**Where does my judgement begin and end when it comes to figuring out what to do with that new piece? **(3)**Also there are going to be times when the piece placed before me must be accepted despite my judgement so how do I recognize those times?

A lot of us are confused by ignorance about infallibility, where it begins and ends, but I think the above 3 questions are the crux of what we are really trying to understand. I can’t speak for us all, but I believe one of the hardest road blocks for us to enter is to know where the catholic church ends and where we as an individual begin. I think an understanding of those things would go a long way to bridge that gap. As a protestant we have great individual worth and ability in our churches, however through ignorance we have an image of having little worth and ability if we were a catholic. Correcting that broken image, with a clear explanation of where an individual begins and ends would make a huge difference in creating inroads toward Catholicism.

Thanks.

Friend, great questions. This is why we do not assent to any religion, even if it be Catholicism, because we are able to wrap our minds around what we must believe in that particular religion. After all, no matter how hard we think, we cannot know if a Transcendent claim is true or false.

So even if, by some miracle, you were able to wrap your mind around the entire Catechism and get yourself to accept Catholicism, the next time a Dogma is proclaimed or a doctrine is set forth, you will have another faith crisis. You will have to reanalyze that truth and put Catholicism back in to the corner of suspicion.

Therefore, this is not how you should assent. To be Catholic is to assent to the Church. The Church provides a case as to why one should consider the Church to have authority to speak regarding matters we cannot experience as human beings i.e. Transcendent truths (Nature of God, Salvation, Sin, Heaven, Hell, Scripture is the Word of God etc). We accept or reject Catholicism (or any other religion for that matter), based on reasons to think that the one proclaiming and teaching the Transcendent truths of that religion, has authority to do so.

We are having this very discussion on the following thread and do join in if it interests you!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10721847#post10721847

 

[Koineman]

The starting point is an intuitive truth or a premise that one arrives at using intuitive truths i.e. Reason.

Arbitrary picking a starting point is unreasonable.

Yes, I agree. What I said does not necessarily endorse blind faith.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes, I agree. What I said does not necessarily endorse blind faith.

Well in the other thread, you require one to believe that “Scripture is the Word of God” as the first and foremost premise (at least for Protestantism). Since that premise is not a verifiable truth or something one can arrive at through reason (because it is a Transcendent truth), to first assent to that claim would indeed be arbitrary.

 

[Koineman]

Friend, great questions. This is why we do not assent to any religion, even if it be Catholicism, because we are able to wrap our minds around what we must believe in that particular religion. After all, no matter how hard we think, we cannot know if a Transcendent claim is true or false.

The NT says otherwise. Christ said, “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:17)

Paul warned the Galatian believers–not just leaders but the entire body there–that those who preach another gospel are anathema. He would not have written that to them unless he thought they were capable of knowing–wrapping their mind around, to use your phrase–whether such preaching was in fact another gospel.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The NT says otherwise. Christ said, “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” (John 7:17)

Paul warned the Galatian believers–not just leaders but the entire body there–that those who preach another gospel are anathema. He would not have written that to them unless he thought they were capable of knowing–wrapping their mind around, to use your phrase–whether such preaching was in fact another gospel.

Here we go again! Please read the above post to you. Scripture itself is under question and suspect as the “Word of God” when one embarks on the journey to find the true faith. You cannot just arbitrarily believe in a Transcendent claim like “Scripture is the Word of God”.

Also to know what a “different gospel” looks like, you need to first know what the gospel is. To be more accurate, even the authority of Paul himself is still under question when we are speaking of arriving at a true religion.

 

[Koineman]

Well in the other thread, you require one to believe that “Scripture is the Word of God” as the first and foremost premise (at least for Protestantism). Since that premise is not a verifiable truth or something one can arrive at through reason (because it is a Transcendent truth), to first assent to that claim would indeed be arbitrary.

I said that it was my ultimate authority. Did I actually say, though, that that conclusion could not be arrived at through reason?

Moreover, as I said on that other thread, reason is not the only component in grasping transcendent truths; there is also a supernatural component, namely, the work of the Holy Spirit. The NT has a lot to say about the believer’s ability to discern transcendent truths, which unbelievers are not able to discern. Unfortunately, you emphasize only the reason part while overlooking the spiritual aspect.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I said that it was my ultimate authority. Did I actually say, though, that that conclusion could not be arrived at through reason?

Moreover, as I said on that other thread, reason is not the only component in grasping transcendent truths; there is also a supernatural component, namely, the work of the Holy Spirit. The NT has a lot to say about the believer’s ability to discern transcendent truths, which unbelievers are not able to discern. Unfortunately, you emphasize only the reason part while overlooking the spiritual aspect.

Look, to say that “we have a Transcendent component in arriving at religion” is itself a Transcendent claim. i.e. beyond verification and therefore not worthy of belief until we have assented to a particular religion. Please stop quoting the NT as well because the NT itself is under test here. You cannot quote the NT to justify assent to Transcendent claims when we are speaking of the very process of assent itself. Only reason you may quote the NT is for historical truths. Nothing more.

Now we cannot accept a Transcendent claim like “Scripture is the Word of God” without reason. Do you have reason? If you do, why don’t you spare us both the trouble and present it in a nice list of premises and conclusions?

 

[Koineman]

Here we go again! Please read the above post to you. Scripture itself is under question and suspect as the “Word of God” when one embarks on the journey to find the true faith.

This thread is not about finding the true faith. It has, however, turned into the question of whether the claims of the Catholic Church to be apostolic are true, or at least it seems to be headed in that direction quickly. Since the Catholic Church itself agrees that the Bible is inspired and thus authoritative, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot use the Bible to examine this issue. The RCC’s consistency with its own acknowledged authority is a big issue for Protestants, at least for me, and the only way to check that consistency is to consult that authority.

What you are positing is like a publication that claims to follow a particular style guide faithfully, but then says, “You can’t check the style guide to see if we have faithfully followed it.” That’s absurd.

You cannot just arbitrarily believe in a Transcendent claim like “Scripture is the Word of God”.

There is no arbitrariness going on. As I told you on the other thread, Eufrosnia, both Catholics and Protestants agree that Scripture is inspired and therefore has divine authority. Therefore, it is absurd to exclude it from this discussion.

If you don’t want to discuss what the Scriptures have to say about this issue of being able to discern transcendent truths, then there is no point in discussing this with me. But thanks anyway.

Also to know what a “different gospel” looks like, you need to first know what the gospel is. To be more accurate, even the authority of Paul himself is still under question when we are speaking of arriving at a true religion.

Paul goes into great detail in that epistle to explain what it was about the Judaizers’ teaching that made it another gospel. That not only tells us what the gospel is but also gives us the criterion for discerning a false gospel.

 

[Koineman]

Please stop quoting the NT as well because the NT itself is under test here.

On the contrary, I will continue to quote the NT since it is an authority that both Catholics and Protestants agree to. Please stop trying to be the one who gets to set the rules for this discussion.

 

[Eufrosnia]

This thread is not about finding the true faith. It has, however, turned into the question of whether the claims of the Catholic Church to be apostolic are true, or at least it seems to be headed in that direction quickly. Since the Catholic Church itself agrees that the Bible is inspired and thus authoritative, there is absolutely no reason why we cannot use the Bible to examine this issue. The RCC’s consistency with its own acknowledged authority is a big issue for Protestants, at least for me, and the only way to check that consistency is to consult that authority.

What you are positing is like a publication that claims to follow a particular style guide faithfully, but then says, “You can’t check the style guide to see if we have faithfully followed it.” That’s absurd.

No, you misunderstand. The Catholic Church, if it lacks authority, is not worthy of belief regarding ANY CLAIM. That includes the claim that “Scripture is the Word of God”. If you want to accept that claim from the Church, you must also accept the rest of the claims i.e. regarding it been the final authority on interpretation as well.

There is no arbitrariness going on. As I told you on the other thread, Eufrosnia, both Catholics and Protestants agree that Scripture is inspired and therefore has divine authority. Therefore, it is absurd to exclude it from this discussion.

If you don’t want to discuss what the Scriptures have to say about this issue of being able to discern transcendent truths, then there is no point in discussing this with me. But thanks anyway.

Look, Catholics only assent because the Church says so and the authority is reasonable for them. Protestants blindly assent to a claim or worse, it seems like picks and chooses what they want to assent from the Church.

So unless you have reason to give for the Protestant claim that Scripture is the Word of God but the Church lacks authority, then Protestantism is unworthy of belief and is a fad.

Paul goes into great detail in that epistle to explain what it was about the Judaizers’ teaching that made it another gospel. That not only tells us what the gospel is but also gives us the criterion for discerning a false gospel.

Stop with Paul and Scripture. That is still under test. Both of them are suspect. So please, answer my question. Do you or do you not have reasons apart from the authority of the Church to claim that “Scripture is the Word of God”? If you do not, then you are unreasonable in assenting to the claim minus the authority of the Church. If you do, please present it for all of us to see.

 

[Eufrosnia]

On the contrary, I will continue to quote the NT since it is an authority that both Catholics and Protestants agree to. Please stop trying to be the one who gets to set the rules for this discussion.

You cannot quote it because for the purpose of this discussion, both the Catholic and Protestant position is under test. And please do answer these questions on the other thread regarding authority because you are derailing your own thread here.

Since you obviously do not believe that the argument presented by the Church for its authority is valid, you cannot believe any of its claims. So while the Catholic is reasonable in believing Scripture as the Word of God, YOU ARE NOT! Do you see the important difference?

 

[Koineman]

No, you misunderstand. The Catholic Church, if it lacks authority, is not worthy of belief regarding ANY CLAIM. That includes the claim that “Scripture is the Word of God”. If you want to accept that claim from the Church, you must also accept the rest of the claims i.e. regarding it been the final authority on interpretation as well.

Not so fast. I disagree with your conclusion. Even if it was the Catholic Church through whom the Bible came, that does not mean it has more authority than the Bible. Since it does not have more authority than the Bible, it cannot be said to be the final authority on everything the Bible says.

An analogy from history: MG George G. Meade was delivered a message from President Abraham Lincoln just before the Battle of Gettysburg. The message appointed him to be the commander of the Union Army. Imagine the messenger who delivered that important message telling Meade, “Not only am I the deliverer of this message, but also I am the final authority to interpret it correctly, whereas you, General, are not.”

The messenger does not have more authority than–and not even the same level of authority as–the author of the message.

Stop with Paul and Scripture.

Nope. Not doing that. Sorry.

So please, answer my question. Do you or do you not have reasons apart from the authority of the Church to claim that “Scripture is the Word of God”? If you do not, then you are unreasonable in assenting to the claim minus the authority of the Church. If you do, please present it for all of us to see.

See my point above. Even if I agreed that it was through the Catholic Church that the Bible came to us, that would not lock me into believing that everything that church teaches is authoritative and binding. Your flaw is to assume that if a body is authoritative in one decision, it must therefore be authoritative in all subsequent decisions.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Not so fast. I disagree with your conclusion. Even if it was the Catholic Church through whom the Bible came, that does not mean it has more authority than the Bible. Since it does not have more authority than the Bible, it cannot be said to be the final authority on everything the Bible says.

An analogy from history: MG George G. Meade was delivered a message from President Abraham Lincoln just before the Battle of Gettysburg. The message appointed him to be the commander of the Union Army. Imagine the messenger who delivered that important message telling Meade, “Not only am I the deliverer of this message, but also I am the final authority to interpret it correctly, whereas you, General, are not.”

The messenger does not have more authority than–and not even the same level of authority as–the author of the message.

Look, Scripture is the word of God is a proposition regarding the Transcendent truths. So to accept that claim, one must consider X (the one making the claim) to be an authority regarding the Transcendent.

So if you accept the claim because X said so, that means you accept that X is an authority regarding the Transcendent. So you also have to accept the rest of the claims regarding Transcendent truths from X.

You cannot disagree with the Church if it says that “I am the authority that can infallibly interpret it for you” because that itself is a Transcendent claim. You cannot disagree with Transcendent claims since you have no visibility of the truth or falsity of the claims.

What part of this is difficult?

Nope. Not doing that. Sorry.

Yes, because you cannot do that.

See my point above. Even if I agreed that it was through the Catholic Church that the Bible came to us, that would not lock me into believing that everything that church teaches is authoritative and binding. Your flaw is to assume that if a body is authoritative in one decision, it must therefore be authoritative in all subsequent decisions.

Read what I have written to you. You either accept X as an authority regarding the Transcendent or you don’t. End of story. If you reject X as an authority, you reject everything.

You cannot postulate a scope or limit on X’s authority regarding the authority on Transcendent matters because that itself is a Transcendent matter.

Now do you have a defense? If not, you should start by accepting X or rejecting Protestantism as well.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . . .
That’s funny: It was that very question, asked by someone else on another thread, that prompted me to ask the question in the OP on this one.

So if the point of your OP is that either question is as pointless as the other in the effort to adjudicate differences between Catholics and Protestants, I agree.

Is that it then?

 

[Koineman]

So if the point of your OP is that either question is as pointless as the other in the effort to adjudicate differences between Catholics and Protestants, I agree.

Is that it then?

Pretty much, yes.