D
david_francis
Guest
Just because Joe says it’s true, doesn’t make Joe true. And, when what Joe says contradicts my conscience and reason, then it would make no sense to follow what Joe said.
- Status
M
Maranatha
Guest
Pride puts your conscience and reson above that of Jesus Christ and his appointed representatives.
M
michaelp
Guest
Hey Lisa,
How do you extract the infallible teaching from the catechism from the fallible ones. They are not in red letter, so how is the average Joe supposed to know?
It is like saying that the Bible contains the word of God, but it is not the word of God. And then someone asks, “How do you know which parts are the word of God?” And you say, “The really important parts are the word of God?” Well, how does anyone know what are the important parts? How can someone separate issues of faith and morals from issues of practice?
This seems to be one of the many achilles heels of RC since you really don’t know what the infallible teachings are. It is a problem that I have had since the very beginning. Even if you could justify the infallible succession issue, no one knows what is infallible and what is not. Everyone disagrees.
I am enjoying the books. But I actually learn much more from people here than all of the books that I have. You all are great.
Michael
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Hey Greyhawk. This is not true, you could have an infallible lists of the statements made thus far and then say that more may come later. In other words, the list does not have to be exhaustive.
Although . . . . (here I go) . . . I don’t see why it should not be all given if the information is there . . . I don’t think there needs to be this secrecy with God’s word. In this sense, it seems very Gnostic. The Magisterium contains the Tradition and does not tell anyone about it until necessary. Then they write it down in the Catechism and no one know which is infallible and which is not.
Again, with great respect,
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Actually, I could. Rightly interpreted Scripture is always infallible being theonoustos (“God breathed”). There is not any Scripture that is not God breathed and infallible. Now, don’t come back and say that Job’s friends statements are not infallible. That is a given. But the Scriptural message of Job is the very words of God spoken through man acurately and infallibly. So, all of it is inspired and infallible.
Is all of the Catechism inspired and infallible? No? Then you have created a false association between the two that does not apply to this discussion in the way you have implied.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Wow! This clears everything upThe confusion of this thread is caused by the fact that many Catholics do not understand how the church receives her infallible teachings.
A papal ex cathedra teaching is an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium of the Church. All dogmas defined by papal ex cathedra statements are infallible teachings.
The dogmas defined by papal ex cathedra statements, and the dogmas solemnly defined at valid Ecumenical Councils are the two ways that the Church receives infallible teaching through the extraordinary exercise of the teaching office of the Church.
The vast majority of the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church has NOT been received through extraordinary exercises of the magisterium, but through the teachings that have been received through the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium. For example, the teaching that abortion is gravely sinful in every circumstance is an infallible teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium. Most of the infallible moral teaching of the Catholic Church has been received through the ordinary universal magisterium.MAGESTERIUM, EXTRAORDINARY The Church’s teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magesterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.
MAGESTERIUM, ORDINARY The teaching office of the hierarchy under the Pope, exercised normally, that is, through the regular means of instructing the faithful. These means are all the usual channels of communication, whether written, spoken, or practical. When the ordinary magesterium is also universal, that is, collectively intended for all the faithful, it is also infallible.
Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S. J.
. It is no wonder that everyone is confused as to what is infallible and what is not.Actually, I think that it is precisely because people do know this that they are confused.
BTW: Do you have a list of infallible statements? Do you know what they are? If so, could you let us all in on them?
I know you don’t and I don’t mean to sound so difficult. But can’t you see where some of us are coming from? You have infalliblility, but you don’t really know what is infallible. You have a fallible teaching of an infallible Church in the catechism. Your not sure which statements throughout history are infallible and which are not. And so on . . .
Michael
D
david_francis
Guest
To me, one of the most intriguing ideas within Catholicism is about conscience. The assumption is that conscience is something that must be formed. The idea is that one is not born with a fully formed and proper conscience. A perfect example of this is my two-year-old son. Right now hitting his older sisters when he is mad does not contradict his conscience or reason. So we are working to form his conscience.
While St. Thomas Aquinas taught that following the conscience is so important that one ought not to be Christian if it would violate one’s conscience, it is also important that it be properly formed. And from a practical stance, this is difficult. No one ever reacts very well to being told, “Well, your conscience isn’t fully formed.” Yet, it is imperative that we strive to conform our conscience to that of God.
In the book of Genesis, what Adam and Eve want is to be more than they are. They desire the fruit in expectation that it will make them more God-like. They do not go to God and ask for this. But instead they acted on their own. In so doing, they make idols of themselves.
We are always in danger of doing the same thing when we demand that all conform to our conscience. One would hope that conflict (or the appearance of it) would always be a time that we would re-examine our conscience and question ourselves.
In being Christian, we believe in Jesus. Not just as a symbol, but as a real, living being that needed oxygen to breathe and who, if cut, would bleed. Christians believe that he hung upon a cross so real that if you touched it you could get a sliver.
Having come to earth in such a present way, is it reasonable to believe that He would have left a living representative of Himself? Would it be reasonable to believe He would have left a church so real that you could meet members? And if this church should proclaim something as infallible, would it be reasonable to assume it could be true? Or, if this proclamation conflicts with my conscience, would it be more reasonable to assume that my conscience and I’m the one who understands what God intended?
May God be with you
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Agreed, rightly interpreted scripture is infallible. That is why Christ instituted his church with a teaching office (the magisterium). The faithful of Christ’s church know when scripture is rightly interpreted, because the faithful accept the teaching authority of their bishops when they speak in union with the bishop that holds the the keys of the kingdom of heaven.(Matt. 16-19).
Protestantism, on the other hand, has rejected the divine authority of the teaching office of Christ’s church, and that is why Protestantism is fragmented into thousands of bickering and contentious sect that cannot all agree one single article of faith.
The greatest argument that can be given against the claims of Protestant is Protestantism itself. If Protestantism spoke with a single voice that presented a unified alternative to the teachings of the Catholic Church, then Protestantism might have some credibility. But Protestants cannot all agree on anything (other than they don’t accept the teaching authority of Catholic Bishops). Protestantism is not believable, because there is no unity of faith within the thousands of sects of Protestantism. Protestantism presents Christianity as Tower of Babel. Protestant confusion over doctrine not the work of the Holy Spirit, it is the work of the author of confusion - Satan.
No, I don’t have such a list because it is impossible to come up with such a list. The Catholic Church accepts that Sacred Scriptures are writings of men working under the inspiration of the Holy Spirt. The number of doctrinal truths that are contained in the inspired scriptures would be infinite, since God has revealed himself through Scriptures. God is truth, and God is infinite.
You say that you could make a list of all the doctrinal truths that are contained in scriptures. Go ahead and make your comprehensive list, and then I will show you doctrinal truths that you have left off your list.
Christ founded his church upon the apostles, and Christ created offices within his church that he filled by men that he appointed. Men chosen by Christ were given the authority to teach in his name, and men still are vested with the authority of the offices of Christ’s church.
All Protestant “bible churches” are unscriptural, because Christ did not found a church based on a book of scriptures. If Christ wanted to found a religion based on a list of doctrines, he would have gathered around him twelve scribes, and not the twelve apostles.
Nowhere does the NT present anything remotely similar to Protestant “bible churches”. The Christians of the NT belonged to an authoritative, patriarchal, and hierarchical church that contained ordained deacons, priests and bishops. A church structured along the lines of Protestant congregationalism is completely alien to the NT church that is in the Bible.
M
michaelp
Guest
What if a Protestant were to say to you “I don’t have a list of the canon because that is impossible to come up with such a list.”?
Would you accept that? Of course not.
Now why can’t you come up with a list of infallible statements? It should not be too difficult. Otherwise, all you are saying is that you don’t know what they are. Then your “infallibility” has become useless because you don’t even know where it is found.
No, I just said that I could make a list of infallible information given by the apostles. What is that list, Scripture. Where is your list of infallible statements made by the Popes.
You see . . . it is not very easy to accept your position.
66 books of the canon. There you go.
Authority, yes. Infallible authority . . . that is what is in discussion here.
Question begging. This has not been established and is in discussion.
Nowh
Assertion. Thanks for your opinion though!
Now we are getting irrelavent to the thread. But, none the less, thanks for your opinion.
Michael
M
Matt16_18
Guest
No, I don’t see where you are coming from. I have exactly what the early Christians had - full membership in the church that Christ founded. Was the early church attacked by heretics preaching false doctrine? Of course that happened - anyone can see that that the Apostles were writing letters rebuking false teachers. To combat heresy, the early church never saw any need to create lists that contained 100% of all the infallible doctrines believed by the church, because that is an impossible task.
If you want to know some of the fundamental doctrines of the Catholic church, I can point you to books that will answer that question. But has Christ’s church ever tried to make up a list of all infallible doctrines that is exact and complete? Never. She has never done that, and she never will do that, because no sane person would ever attempt such a task.
Those vested with the authority to teach in Christ’s name will condemn heresy when it arises. The faithful don’t need a list of every single doctrine that has ever been defined,* or could possibly be defined*. The faithful need only to “hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2Thes. 2:15).
Christ himself said that false teachers would arise. If a false teacher arises, then I can look to the bishops of Christ’s chuch to rebuke the heresy, with the sure knowledge that the Gates of Hell will never prevail against the church that Christ founded. Men teaching false doctrine have been around since Christ founded his church, and this will continue this until Christ returns to separate the sheep from the goats.
M
Matt16_18
Guest
I accept that it is impossible for Protestants to determine on their own which books belong in the canon. Protestants lack validly ordained bishops, so they are incapable of definitively answering a question such as which books belong in the canon of Sacred Scripture. That is why you have Protestants today that are making up their own canon of Scriptures.
If you can accept that as an answer, then you can accept this as an answer: “the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”. (2Thes. 2:15).
M
michaelp
Guest
Frankly, this is a diversion and a rant. It is not the place for this since it is irrelavent. Thanks for your opinion though.
This is a fine answer, but it is completely unsatifactory for someone to say that they have unfallible teaching and you must follow it or be deemed a heritic. And oh . . . by the way, we are not EXACTLY sure what this infallible teaching is. But you must follow it.
Now do you see?
What if I said to you as a Evangelical in response to your argument that we don’t have a canon of Scripture that we are infallibly sure of: “The faithful do not need a canon of scripture.”
Or would you have a double-standard at this point.
But even this does not parallel since we can point you to OUR list of infallible teaching so that they can be tested. You cannot. You don’t even have them with certianty.
Not only do you not have an infallible list of infallible teachings, but you don’t have a list at all.
Now do you see why it MIGHT be confusing? Come on . . . just admit to this. You are not admiting to Luther being correct, you are just saying that it is confusing and causes one to raise an eyebrow.
This is a relative pragmatic argument at best. You still don’t know what the infallible teaching are with certianty.
Thanks for hanging around. If nothing else, at least we can learn together.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
That was a dodge if I ever saw one.
Thanks for your opinion.I do. I just don’t anachronistically (post facto) insert my definition of tradition into the text. Here all Paul means is the Gospel. In other words, Tradition=Gospel=summary of Scripture.
No problem. This is called the regula fidei.
But this is diversionary. The topic at hand is infallible tradition of the popes: Where are they?
A
A_Chaoidh
Guest
On infallibility, from Catholic Dogma,
“The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.)”
“In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible. (De fide.)”
“The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. (De fide.)”
“The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.)”
“In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals the Church is infallible. (De fide.)”
“The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. (De fide.)”
A
Apolonio
Guest
According to John 23, and Paul 6 (the two Popes who reigned over Vatican II), the Concil did not give us any new dogmas. The only infallible statements are those that were defined at an earlier time and repeated at Vatican II.
Response:
There was no “dogma” in the sense that there was no de fide credenda. But there was de fide tenenda such as the sacramentality of the episcopate. Any Catholic with a good solid foundation on Catholic theology knows that infallibility also comes through the ordinary and universal magisterium:
“All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith and which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.” (Dogmatic Decree on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 3)
Also, JPII said that Paul VI’s teachings in Humane Vitae is infallible since it is an act of the supreme magisterium.
"Pope Paul VI himself said the following: “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966)”
Response:
Same old same old. This just means the council did not define anything. But as Ratzinger and Bertone have said (Commentary on Professio Ratio), the Church can teach infallible through a non-defined way.
Response:
There was no “dogma” in the sense that there was no de fide credenda. But there was de fide tenenda such as the sacramentality of the episcopate. Any Catholic with a good solid foundation on Catholic theology knows that infallibility also comes through the ordinary and universal magisterium:
“All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith and which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.” (Dogmatic Decree on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 3)
Also, JPII said that Paul VI’s teachings in Humane Vitae is infallible since it is an act of the supreme magisterium.
"Pope Paul VI himself said the following: “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” (Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966)”
Response:
Same old same old. This just means the council did not define anything. But as Ratzinger and Bertone have said (Commentary on Professio Ratio), the Church can teach infallible through a non-defined way.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
michaelp,
The former is more likened to St. John the apostle asserting that it is impossible to have written everything that Jesus said and did, while it is not impossible to write down some of the things Jesus said and did, so long as the Christian Church continued to understand that the Word of God is taught authentically by the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church, in her traditions, both oral and written. Why would the Christian Church want to write down everything authoritative when the 1st century Church didn’t even think this was necessary?
Catholics haven’t created the same problem for Catholicism as Protestants have created for Protestantism. Catholics reject both sola scriptura and sola traditio. Protestants have exalted sola scriptura.
So, Catholics have no need for an infallible list of infallible anything so long as Catholics understand that the Church is infallible and indefectable, always guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth. Catholic need to simply have trust, based upon the charism of infallibility, that the living magisterium of the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and teaches with moral certainty that truth which God would have us believe about Him and His plan for us. Even when the Catholic Church speaks with it’s merely ordinary teaching authority, Catholic ecclesiology insists that we are to submit and to obey our lawful pastors (cf. Heb 13:17), whether they are teaching infallibly or not. Thus, infallible lists of infallibe dogmas are irrelevent to Catholics, excepting dogmaticians and dissidents, as infallible dogmas are not the only things Catholics are bound to submit to and obey.
Protestants, on the other hand, have asserted that it is only that which is taught by the “Bible alone” that is certain. Yet, the thesis that the Bible’s contents consist of only 66 books is not certain, because it is not taught by the “Bible alone.” Nor is there any certainty in a “Bible alone” doctrine, as it is not taught by the “Bible alone.” Nor is there any certainty in a “Faith alone” doctrine, as it is not taught by the Bible alone. Thus, Protestantism, like it or not, has created a self-refuting epistemolical principle which all by itself, refutes the certainty of Protestant doctrines.
That’s rather ridiculous. A list of those instances where the Church has either infallibly expounded or defended the Catholic faith in the past 2000 years is a bit different than a list of books canonized by the early Church as the Bible. The former is too volumous to be of practical usage, and isn’t at all needed in practice since Catholics are to obey their lawful pastors in all things, not just when they are infallibly defining dogma. The latter is merely 73 books, so it is not impractical or too volumous to establish, and it is certainly a necessary part of the deposit of faith, as it is the inspired written Word of God.
The former is more likened to St. John the apostle asserting that it is impossible to have written everything that Jesus said and did, while it is not impossible to write down some of the things Jesus said and did, so long as the Christian Church continued to understand that the Word of God is taught authentically by the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church, in her traditions, both oral and written. Why would the Christian Church want to write down everything authoritative when the 1st century Church didn’t even think this was necessary?
Catholics haven’t created the same problem for Catholicism as Protestants have created for Protestantism. Catholics reject both sola scriptura and sola traditio. Protestants have exalted sola scriptura.
So, Catholics have no need for an infallible list of infallible anything so long as Catholics understand that the Church is infallible and indefectable, always guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth. Catholic need to simply have trust, based upon the charism of infallibility, that the living magisterium of the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and teaches with moral certainty that truth which God would have us believe about Him and His plan for us. Even when the Catholic Church speaks with it’s merely ordinary teaching authority, Catholic ecclesiology insists that we are to submit and to obey our lawful pastors (cf. Heb 13:17), whether they are teaching infallibly or not. Thus, infallible lists of infallibe dogmas are irrelevent to Catholics, excepting dogmaticians and dissidents, as infallible dogmas are not the only things Catholics are bound to submit to and obey.
Protestants, on the other hand, have asserted that it is only that which is taught by the “Bible alone” that is certain. Yet, the thesis that the Bible’s contents consist of only 66 books is not certain, because it is not taught by the “Bible alone.” Nor is there any certainty in a “Bible alone” doctrine, as it is not taught by the “Bible alone.” Nor is there any certainty in a “Faith alone” doctrine, as it is not taught by the Bible alone. Thus, Protestantism, like it or not, has created a self-refuting epistemolical principle which all by itself, refutes the certainty of Protestant doctrines.
M
michaelp
Guest
It is really not that rediculous. These are infallible statements. Most of history is a record of fallible statement that are not that important. I would say that infallible statement are very important. So you would think that if infalliblility was truly believed in throughout Church history and was truly important that there would be a pen and paper recording every time that something infallible was said by the Church. It does not have to be an exhaustive list, just one comprising all of the statements that have been made thus far . . . at least the extrodinary statements.
The reason why you say it is impossible is because no one seems to know what they are.
Therefore: a fallible understanding of a fallible list of infallible statements. Does not help much on the issues of practicality or certianty.
But, just my fallible opinion.
Michael
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
There is two Made in the chair of Peter,and others are any moral and spiritual proclaimation.Abortion,cloning birth control,ect.See Michael some things are not addressed in scripture,cloning,stem cell,the Pope can use his authority to clarify this.Have you checked the Vatican website Michael?God Bless
PS Did you go to my signature site yet? I went to your site
T
teajay
Guest
They are contained within the Vatican’s document library. They are interpreted, and applied, by the Church on a daily basis. Your average Catholic doesn’t need to have copies of them all because they are not required to interpret and apply them for themselves.
Do you have copies of every statute and legal decision ever made in your jurisdiction? Does that prevent you from being a law abiding citizen? Well just as you could discover them if you wanted to, a Catholic can discover all relevant infallible documents of the Church. Of course, some church documents are as complex to discern as any legal decision (e.g. separating the ratio decendi from obiter dicta in a legal decision could be like separating the infallible from the fallible in church documents) but the point is that they do exist, they can be discovered and they do have authority.
G
Greyhawk
Guest
It’s a paradox. As humans we’re by definition limited, and can only imperfectly understand the perfect truths revealed. Before I go further, when I say **imperfect **in bold, I mean a correct but not full understanding. I know by hitting buttons on my keyboard translates onto the computer for me to post on the internet, but just because I don’t understand machine code or HTML does not render my first understanding imperfect(or “flawed”). If we were to have perfect knowledge of everything, we would be God. Consequently, we need to be enlightened by a higher being to keep our perfect seed of revelation from blemish in so far as we can understand it. Just because you fully understand only partial concepts of a truth does not negate the smaller concepts’ validity. Therefore, the Church is infallibly guiuded divinely by the Holy Spirit in the Church and through Peter’s successor.
Dei gratia,
Greyhawk
- Status