Infallible list of infallible teachings

[Eufrosnia]

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.

Well true, but that is only if you can show or know that

3) The RCC has failed to teach and preach the truths handed down by the Apostles.

The problem here is that we cannot know the above unless we already know what the Apostles taught. What you and I know at best is our interpretation of what the Apostles seemed to have taught.

Now as someone who is coming from another thread that I myself started, I can tell you that even after 150 posts, we are still discussing the definitions of what I meant when I used a particular word etc. So language is not perfect and not everyone uses the language the same way to mean the same things as one would in a different time. The actual usage context might have even been lost in the vast reaches of history.

So as logically consistent as our meanings maybe with how we give meaning to the entire Scriptures, it still is not reason for us to think that our given meaning is true. Once we recognize this problem, we should see why proposition (3) cannot be known by anyone without an ability to know the Transcendent, to be true or false.

 

[Eufrosnia]

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.

Can you point me to the post you addressed this? Because all I recall was you trying to show that Catholics too suffer from some variation of this problem. Apart from the validity of that claim, even if we were to grant it, the conclusion would be that both these so called variations of Christianity are fad or scam. None are worthy of belief.

The person who claims that “we are saved by faith alone” is just as much a scammer as the one who claims “we are by faith and works”.

 

[Koineman]

Well true, but that is only if you can show or know that

I can. As you just said in another post, it’s possible to read a text and understand it.

3) The RCC has failed to teach and preach the truths handed down by the Apostles.

The problem here is that we cannot know the above unless we already know what the Apostles taught. What you and I know at best is our interpretation of what the Apostles seemed to have taught.

We can read what they wrote, can’t we? We are able to come to a reasonable conclusion of what they taught using grammar, knowledge of the historical backdrop of a given writing, and so on. That’s using natural reason–your own approach. Yet now not even that is enough. Don’t you see how we are not going to get anywhere?

Eufrosnia, thanks for discussing this, but I’m afraid that we are just going to go around in circles on this.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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.

Actually the CC’s and EO position has always been that STC is taught and portrayed by the NT authors taken as a whole, and by the fathers taken as a whole, and by the Ecumenical Councils. And that there was no other way taught and practiced and recognized in the church East and West until the Reformation proposed SS.

It is incumbent upon you to make good on the claims of the reformation protest against this preexisting position and show why the evidence of positive theology rationally compels one to abandon STC in favor of SS.

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.

OK, you scared me there!

I don’t discuss important issues such as this by hurling quotes either. Which is not to say I avoid citing them thoroughly and adding them up to assess their cumulative import.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I can. As you just said in another post, it’s possible to read a text and understand it.

For sure. By understand, we mean arrive at a meaning. But we do not necessarily know if that meaning is correct unless it gets heard and certified by another authority that we are correct, yes?

I mean I will be the first to admit its false if you can tell me why. Because don’t we do the same in our examinations and tests at a University to make sure the understanding of students is correct?

We can read what they wrote, can’t we? We are able to come to a reasonable conclusion of what they taught using grammar, knowledge of the historical backdrop of a given writing, and so on. That’s using natural reason–your own approach. Yet now not even that is enough. Don’t you see how we are not going to get anywhere?

Eufrosnia, thanks for discussing this, but I’m afraid that we are just going to go around in circles on this.

Well, lets not jump to conclusions if we will go in circles. Lets just try to understand each other, ok?

So in what I said about natural reason, I do not actually rely on any Transcendent claim. Therefore as I said, we can continue to do more historical research work to see if our premises are false or true.

So seeing if Jesus died and rose from the dead has enough evidence to think it historical, or to see whether Jewish rabbi’s were known to pass down their teaching authority to selected students, to see whether Jesus had such selected students, to see whether the selected students had students of their own and so forth are things which we can study as deep as we want or to the level to convince us that it is true.

But with interpreting a textual claim regarding a Transcendent matter, we cannot know if that interpretation is indeed correct because we cannot study its object. In other words, if our interpretation of a passage was that “we are saved by faith alone”, I cannot do more research work to make sure that this is indeed what it is.

Now you may say that “but we can make sure of the likelihood that the passage is saying that (even though we may not know if it is true)”. I would agree with you and what better option do we have than to turn to those who hand the knowledge and teachings down? Why by pass them to go and study more texts?

To ask this another way, let us say the subject of Quantum Physics. Would it be reasonable for me and you to interpret the thesis of Max Plank a certain way when all his Phd students who are now Professors, suggest otherwise?

 

[Koineman]

Actually the CC’s and EO position has always been that STC is taught and portrayed by the NT authors taken as a whole, and by the fathers taken as a whole, and by the Ecumenical Councils. And that there was no other way taught and practiced and recognized in the church East and West until the Reformation proposed SS.

That, of course, can be debated by going into what the church fathers wrote, but that would create the very back-and-forth mess I don’t care to get into.

It is incumbent upon you to make good on the claims of the reformation protest against this preexisting position

It’s incumbent on YOU to make good on your claims that this was a preexisting position and that the idea of SS was totally absent from the thoughts of the church until the Reformation. I find it astonishing that you dictate who must prove what, as if it’s a foregone conclusion that your position was right. Man alive, I can just see what kind of a discussion it would end up being with that kind of mind-set involved.:dts:

 

[Koineman]

For sure. By understand, we mean arrive at a meaning. But we do not necessarily know if that meaning is correct unless it gets heard and certified by another authority that we are correct, yes?

No, we don’t even do that in everyday life. We don’t read a history book and then run our interpretation of every sentence in that book by a historian to see if we’ve grasped it right. We don’t do that with every single point we read in the church fathers or in Scripture.

So in what I said about natural reason, I do not actually rely on any Transcendent claim. Therefore as I said, we can continue to do more historical research work to see if our premises are false or true.

I’ve pointed this out to you in another thread: I don’t think your approach is correct because it overlooks the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the individual who believes. Faith does involve reason, but it does not all hang on reason, as you seem to think.

But with interpreting a textual claim regarding a Transcendent matter, we cannot know if that interpretation is indeed correct because we cannot study its object.

I disagree: Christ said that if one’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching comes from God. There again is that spiritual component which you consistently seem to overlook. And I CAN use that text to make this objection because it is written in human language, which involves the use of natural reason.

In other words, if our interpretation of a passage was that “we are saved by faith alone”, I cannot do more research work to make sure that this is indeed what it is.

Yes you can. You can consult what the entire corpus of Scripture has to say about salvation by faith. And it’s possible to come up with a correct interpretation of those texts.

To ask this another way, let us say the subject of Quantum Physics. Would it be reasonable for me and you to interpret the thesis of Max Plank a certain way when all his Phd students who are now Professors, suggest otherwise?

No, but this analogy breaks down all too fast. The grasping of truths in the kingdom of God does not happen in that way. God reveals truths to babes that He hides from the wise. One does not need to consult an expert for everything he reads in Scripture. The Holy Spirit accompanies the preaching of the Word to bring about understanding in those whom He instructs. Jesus told the Jews of His day that they could not understand what He said because His word had no place in them. This has so much more to do with the supernatural than you are making out.

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, we don’t even do that in everyday life. We don’t read a history book and then run our interpretation of every sentence in that book by a historian to see if we’ve grasped it right. We don’t do that with every single point we read in the church fathers or in Scripture.

Ok maybe I was a little too vague. If you wanted to read a history book, you certainly don’t need to make sure you understood what it is saying. It will also be VERY MUCH EASIER for you to understand because it deals with things you always encounter in real life.

But STILL, if you had to then go and teach the subject to others, no one will allow you to do that before making sure that you did indeed understand things correctly. There will be an exam and people will check whether your interpretation and reasoning around the facts you read make sense and follow proper historical analysis.

Now this becomes even more important in fields that do not deal with things that we encounter in real life, whether it be a abstract subject like Theoretical physics or Transcendent claims (Religion). So the need for testing to see if you understood it properly is greater.

Did that clarify?

I
I’ve pointed this out to you in another thread: I don’t think your approach is correct because it overlooks the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the individual who believes. Faith does involve reason, but it does not all hang on reason, as you seem to think.

The problem with your counterargument is that it is not grounded in reason. It requires me to assent to the existence of a Holy Spirit before even knowing which religion is true. So your objection as far as a person who wants to know the truth and is looking for it is concerned, is invalid. It only has any merits to someone who has already found the truth. But that itself in your case is under test in this very discussion.

I disagree: Christ said that if one’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching comes from God. There again is that spiritual component which you consistently seem to overlook. And I CAN use that text to make this objection because it is written in human language, which involves the use of natural reason.

Well this would be great and profound work of Theology if we knew it were true. But as it stands, all we have is your interpretation of what Christ says and empirical evidence that this certainly does not seem to be the case.

People who are honestly seeking without reason, join everything from Islam, Protestantism, Jehovah’s Witness to any other religion you can think of.

So empirical evidence suggest your interpretation is wrong and neither of us have reason to think you have authority. So it is not really of any value.

As to the fact whether you can make that claim with certainty, you cannot do so because it speaks of a Transcendent truth.

Yes you can. You can consult what the entire corpus of Scripture has to say about salvation by faith. And it’s possible to come up with a correct interpretation of those texts.

Aah yes. This is a very common misunderstanding that some have regarding logic. You are of the position that if one were to hold that “One is saved by faith alone”, one can construct a very logically consistent framework that takes in to account entire Scripture. Yes?

The problem is, even if that were true, it does not show that your view is true. It is a classic fallacy to think that is does. All it says is that you have one in possibly infinite possible distinct interpretations that one can arrive about Scripture as a whole and as to what it is saying.

Perhaps if you understand this, it might help you better understand the predicament of Protestantism.

No, but this analogy breaks down all too fast. The grasping of truths in the kingdom of God does not happen in that way. God reveals truths to babes that He hides from the wise. One does not need to consult an expert for everything he reads in Scripture. The Holy Spirit accompanies the preaching of the Word to bring about understanding in those whom He instructs. Jesus told the Jews of His day that they could not understand what He said because His word had no place in them. This has so much more to do with the supernatural than you are making out.

Again, the issue here is that you are afraid to decouple your Theology with actual reasoning we are discussing to adopt that theology in the first place. So this is why you are failing to break free. You are already approaching this with the mindset that you must be right. So anything that suggest otherwise is obviously going to seem wrong.

In this case, you interpreted some Scripture passages and made the above theological pronouncements on why one does not need to consult an expert. But you forget all too easily that it was, first and foremost, your own interpretation of Scripture.

One has to avoid such logical errors if one wants to arrive at the truth, yes?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Koineman:

You can consult what the entire corpus of Scripture has to say about salvation by faith. And it’s possible to come up with a correct interpretation of those texts.

How do you explain the thousands of various Protestant sects then? They all have done exactly what you suggest and have arrived at contradictory answers.

It is obvious to anyone, who has the slightest familiarity with Scriptures and other religious sects, that no matter HOW you say you have arrived at your interpretation (including private enlightenment by the Holy Spirit) they will be contradicted by others claiming the exact same methods!

Only an authority, a Religion, can settle what a Religion has produced.

 

[Eufrosnia]

How do you explain the thousands of various Protestant sects then? They all have done exactly what you suggest and have arrived at contradictory answers.

It is obvious to anyone, who has the slightest familiarity with Scriptures and other religious sects, that no matter HOW you say you have arrived at your interpretation (including private enlightenment by the Holy Spirit) they will be contradicted by others claiming the exact same methods!

Only an authority, a Religion, can settle what a Religion has produced.

Good question!

I think our friend is under the mistake that many commit regarding logically consistent interpretations of texts. Although the interpretations maybe consistent, he is forgetting that there could be infinitely possible such distinct interpretations.

 

[Filioque]

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.

No leap. The Bible is clear where in the NT it is held as useful, or in other translations profitable, nowhere does it say that it is the sole sufficient source. It does however as pointed out and not responded to by youreself point out the authority of the Church, more specifically the authority of the Apostles and those who they laid hands on (their successors) is the Authority that Christ Jesus gave us to rule and guide the Church, as opposed to individuals who hold the idea that with the scriptures alone they can judge what is pure doctrine.

That the Authority of the successors of the office of the Apostles have the authority to transmit, and define the Faith is no denial of the status of the Sacred Scriptures, what you and Protestantism seem to want to do is make it an either or proposition. Either it is the Church or the Bible. As Catholics we have for near 2000 years held not one or the other, but one and the other. That the Scriptures while a closed canon are a living document, as is the Church a living Church. That God uses the Church to speak to us not as a dead letter, but a living expression of His love, which He empowers by His grace to give us His supernatural life. The works of the Church, be they through the Sacraments, or it’s teaching office are valid not because Bishop X or Pope Y as men say so, but because God (in the second person of the Trinity) established and maintains it as His means to sanctify us. Because Christ Jesus works through those who He laid hands on, and those who they laid hands on to this day.

 

[Tomster]

No leap. The Bible is clear where in the NT it is held as useful, or in other translations profitable, nowhere does it say that it is the sole sufficient source. It does however as pointed out and not responded to by youreself point out the authority of the Church, more specifically the authority of the Apostles and those who they laid hands on (their successors) is the Authority that Christ Jesus gave us to rule and guide the Church, as opposed to individuals who hold the idea that with the scriptures alone they can judge what is pure doctrine.

That the Authority of the successors of the office of the Apostles have the authority to transmit, and define the Faith is no denial of the status of the Sacred Scriptures, what you and Protestantism seem to want to do is make it an either or proposition. Either it is the Church or the Bible. As Catholics we have for near 2000 years held not one or the other, but one and the other. That the Scriptures while a closed canon are a living document, as is the Church a living Church. That God uses the Church to speak to us not as a dead letter, but a living expression of His love, which He empowers by His grace to give us His supernatural life. The works of the Church, be they through the Sacraments, or it’s teaching office are valid not because Bishop X or Pope Y as men say so, but because God (in the second person of the Trinity) established and maintains it as His means to sanctify us. Because Christ Jesus works through those who He laid hands on, and those who they laid hands on to this day.

So, we can then say that the Protestants of the 16th century declared that the Bible was the only source of faith. Having rejected the Vulgate version, they returned to the original texts and immediately devoted themselves wholeheartedly to the Bible.

And, having rejected the authority of the Church, the Protestants in regard to the principles of supernatural interpretation made their own analogy of faith. When they accepted their dogmas of faith, as in their symbols of faith, they appointed themselves or their synods as the sole judges of interpretation.

 

[Tomster]

How do you explain the thousands of various Protestant sects then? They all have done exactly what you suggest and have arrived at contradictory answers.

It is obvious to anyone, who has the slightest familiarity with Scriptures and other religious sects, that no matter HOW you say you have arrived at your interpretation (including private enlightenment by the Holy Spirit) they will be contradicted by others claiming the exact same methods!

Only an authority, a Religion, can settle what a Religion has produced.

Exactly.

The pietistic or Calvinistic criterion, by which God the Author reveals to the individual Bible reader which books are inspired and their interpretation, is insufficient. This inner witness of the Holy Spirit by private revelation might be present in special and rare cases, but since most frequently this witness can be reduced to illusions, certainty based upon this criterion is impossible. The bitter controversy among the early Reformers about the extension of the Canon and the inspired content of some books are sufficient refutation of this theory.

The only objective, infallible and universal criterion of inspiration is Catholic Tradition.

Even the Bereans in the Acts of the Apostles had to be taught orally about the New Law even though they diligently “searched the Scriptures”. Basically they could only search the Old Testament, the Catholic Church hadn’t canonized the New Testament yet. So, here, in the Bible, we have an example of Catholic, Apostolic Tradition at work.

 

[Tomster]

How do you explain the thousands of various Protestant sects then? They all have done exactly what you suggest and have arrived at contradictory answers.

It is obvious to anyone, who has the slightest familiarity with Scriptures and other religious sects, that no matter HOW you say you have arrived at your interpretation (including private enlightenment by the Holy Spirit) they will be contradicted by others claiming the exact same methods!

Only an authority, a Religion, can settle what a Religion has produced.

Having briefly looked at and immediately dismissed the Calvinistic approach to Biblical inspiration, it will only take a few seconds to dismiss Dr. Luther’s theory.

The fruits produced in the mind of the reader by a book are also an insufficient criterion for the inspiration of that book. These fruits are claimed to be deep religious sentiments of faith, hope, and charity for God and man, etc. Luther declared he could tell inspired from non-inspired books ex gusto et sapore, just as he could tell good food from bad food.

Such a criterion, therefore, being neither objective nor universal, but purely arbitrary, does not suffice to prove a book inspired.

 

[Semangelof]

I am not a catholic, so I am called a protestant. I live in a terrible world unsatisfied by either. I can see the failures of both institutions, and the strengths of both, but neither are perfect, neither are complete.

I see how the sola scriptura, and everyman a priest has divided the faith down many roads. Protestants lack a strong enough authority to hold the sheep together, they divide forever.

I remember the old catholic church. That much authority became a terrible, terrible, terrible thing. I tremble when I think of the things done in the name of God.

Where should I go? I need the catholics and I need the protestants and you need me. Each of us needs all those in Christ. I am too terrified to unite the institutions into what they were before. But I also grieve over what we as protestants have lost by not having the catholic, and what the catholic has lost by not having the protestant.

We are all meant to be together in love, not separated in bickering and superstitious rumors about each other. Let us be two institutions, but united as one in love and compassion for each other.

Let the catholic celebrate their authority and let the protestant celebrate their freedom. Each one beholds their own treasure with great love and admiration. Then lets come together and put our treasures in the house of God side by side united in love and purpose.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Has the Roman Catholic Church ever produced an infallible list of its infallible teachings?

Do you want to learn about them?

or

Do you want to fight about them?

Do you belong to a specific denomination of Protestantism?

Maybe this link helps?

A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITY

 

[Eufrosnia]

I am not a catholic, so I am called a protestant. I live in a terrible world unsatisfied by either. I can see the failures of both institutions, and the strengths of both, but neither are perfect, neither are complete.

That is a bold claim to make considering no mere human being should be able to say if it is complete or incomplete without already belonging to one of the camps

The Catholics would love to have the Protestant if they will renounce their errors. But they will not. They believe that they must be free to be in error. Such a luxury does not exist in the Catholic Church (or rightfully in any field of knowledge).

So I suggest if anything, you become Catholic because that is where the truth is. It cannot be because you like the people, think the Popes are good ol chaps who are kind and warm hearted or Protestantism gives freedom to imagine and construct theological frameworks.

To be honest, if getting along is your primary goal, a Protestant framework will probably suit you best. But if your goal is the truth, then welcome home!

 

[Tomster]

Do you want to learn about them?

or

Do you want to fight about them?

Do you belong to a specific denomination of Protestantism?

Maybe this link helps?

A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITY

As for a specific denomination, see the link at the bottom of his posts.

 

[Tomster]

That is a bold claim to make considering no mere human being should be able to say if it is complete or incomplete without already belonging to one of the camps

The Catholics would love to have the Protestant if they will renounce their errors. But they will not. They believe that they must be free to be in error. Such a luxury does not exist in the Catholic Church (or rightfully in any field of knowledge).

So I suggest if anything, you become Catholic because that is where the truth is. It cannot be because you like the people, think the Popes are good ol chaps who are kind and warm hearted or Protestantism gives freedom to imagine and construct theological frameworks.

To be honest, if getting along is your primary goal, a Protestant framework will probably suit you best. But if your goal is the truth, then welcome home!

And that truth will set you free.

 

[Eufrosnia]

As for a specific denomination, see the link at the bottom of his posts.

After all these posts, I didn’t realize that link was there till you just mentioned it. Reading the first article on that site (the silver bullet one), I cannot say I am that happy with that denomination.

It seems as if the writer does not understand the scope of power of the gospels. It can transform a person if they believe in the message. But one cannot truly believe in the message if there is no reason to think it true. As long as there is no reason to think the gospels true, the person will just have a blind belief.

A blind belief would be great in a way if it was always in the actual gospel. But sadly, a blind belief means that a person will miss out on a lot more information other than the gospels which contain Divine Revelation and is just as important. It also means that the person will construct a meaning for the gospels from that limited knowledge he has which may very well be in error (I am sure many of us have seen the “I love Jesus but I hate the Church” videos that floated on Youtube). But there is no way of correcting such an individual because of the nature of assent i.e. blindness. One has nothing to do but to wait till they come around…