Infallible Papal Statements

[Matt16_18]

michaelp:

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.”

I would say that you need to read Paul where he instructs the faithful to hold fast to the “the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” If you don’t accept all of the deposit of faith that comprises Catholic tradition, you will never know which of the letters written by the first Catholics that you must accept as inspired by God.

Catholics wrote the entire New Testament, and Catholics know that Jesus and the Apostles accepted the Septuagint as sacred scripture. Catholics also have bishops that are vested with the authority of Christ to infallibly declare which books of the scripture comprise the canon. All Protestants reject the teaching authority of Christ’s church and accept the mere traditions of men instead. Protestants have no way of knowing for sure which books belong in the canon, and that is why so many Protestants own incomplete bibles. Luther’s canon is a tradition taught by a misguided man, and there is NOTHING in the bible that supports Luther’s defective canon of Scriptures.

Not only do you not have an infallible list of infallible teachings, but you don’t have a list at all.

Catholics do have lists of infallible teachings - we just don’t have a list of every single possible infallible teaching (since that list would be infinite and of no use to anyone). One infallible teaching that Catholics do have written down is which books belong in the canon of Scripture.

The canon was solemnly defined at the Council of Trent because Luther fabricated out of the clear blue sky his own personal canon of scriptures. As always, the leaders of Christ’s Church did their sacred duty and responded to the false teachings of a heretic who was was misleading the faithful. The living magisterium of Chirst’s church formally defined the canon of scriptures that had been accepted for over a thousand years by the Catholic Church. She did this to preserve the authentic traditons of Christ’s church from being corrupted by heretics.

 

[Matt16_18]

michalep:

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.

If you want to know what infallible teachings of the Church have been solemnly defined by the extraordinary exercise of the magisterium of Christ’s church, then all you need to do is buy yourself a copy of:
Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum.
33rd edition.
Heinrich Joseph Denzinger & A. Schönmetzer.
B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, 1965.
The English version of “Denzinger-Schönmetzer” would be published as:Sources of Catholic Dogma, 30th edition,
Heinrich Joseph Denzinger
B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, 1957
(A reprint of the above can be bought for $29.95)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The reason why you say it is impossible is because no one seems to know what they are.

No, as I stated before, only dogmaticians and dissidents CARE if doctrines are infallibly defined or not. Normal Catholics, as I’ve stated, in accord with the Constitution on the Church from Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, *understand that our religious submission of intellect and will are required of ALL doctrines of the Catholic Church, whether they are infallibly defined or not. So practically speaking (apart from studies in dogmatic theology and discussions with dissidents), Catholics have no need for a list of infallible dogmas. We do practically need a compendium of Catholic doctrines, however.

In practice, how does a Catholic know what the doctrines of the Catholic Church are?

1. A compendium of these doctrines is found in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, as well as local catechism built upon the CCC.
2. A Catholic is bound to the ordinary teachings of his bishop, and the lawful pastors incardinated by the bishop to teach on behalf of the bishop. This magisterial teaching is found in the normal means of communication from the bishop and pastors on behalf of the bishop, both oral and written, when they expound or defend Catholic doctrines pertaining to faith and morals.
3. Likewise, a Catholic is bound to the ordinary teachings of the Roman Pontiff, as he is the pastor of the universal Church. When he formally and authoritatively addresses the universal Church on matters of faith and morals, we owe him our religious submission of will and intellect. This magisterial teaching is found in the normal means of communication from the Roman Pontiff, to include oral and written.

Now, since I am studying dogmatic theology, and you are a dissident , we have a common yet extraordinary curiosity for knowing what is *de fide dogma *as distinct from merely *sententia certa. *For dissidents and dogmatic theologians, the sources of Catholic dogma can be discerned, but it takes a bit more scholastic effort than the average Catholic ever needs.

For example, Dr. Ludwig Ott’s *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *is a respected source which describes *de fide *dogma and other forms of sententia certa, as distinct from merely pious opinion or free speculative theology. Another wonderful source for dogmaticians is Denzinger’s *Enchiridion Symbolorum. *Yet the most authoritative source is the *Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS). *But you’d have to go to a theological library to read the AAS, and if you don’t read Latin or Italian, it will be difficult to understand the AAS. The AAS is the Acts of the Apostolic See. Every allocution or official papal instruction, encyclical, etc. is published in the AAS. The sources of Catholic dogma come from the councilar decrees approved by the pope, and the papal decrees, teachings, and judgments, all of which are published in the AAS.

There is not a list, but a huge library of Catholic doctrine and dogma, the most comprehensive of which is the Vatican Library. How can you tell if a teaching is dogma or doctrine? Entire courses in dogmatic theology are written to address this question. In short, normally, an infallible dogma is discerned based upon the manner and repetition in which it is taught, the authority of the words use (eg. anathema language, “we define as part of Catholic and Divine faith”, etc.).

If you have a specific question as to whether a doctrine is infallibly defined or not, I can probably help you with your question. If I cannot. the Roman Pontiff can. A comprehensive list is as impractical as wanting to have the Vatican Library at your disposal, giving a list of all assertions published for 2000 years (dissidents normally want this list so they can well… be dissident). Yet, the relevent level of authority for each, the task of discerning a specific doctrine’s authoritative level of certainty can be discerned.

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

An analogy is likened to my kids if they were to demand a list of all the rules of the household be written down, and all of Dad’s teachings were to be all written down. My question would be why? Jesus wrote nothing down that we know of (other than scribbles in the sand). Why do Christians demand from Christ’s visiible teaching authority on earth more than what the incarnate Christ Himself provided? Christ established a Church, not a correspondence study program of all his written teachings. To demand that Christ Church depart from that which Christ himself established is rather absurd.

Faith comes from what is heard. We don’t need to write it all down because Christ left us a living teaching authority which he continuously guides to all truth. To have everything written down just so dogmaticians and dissidents have an easier time asserting their theories or dissenting from what is infallible is rather ridiculous. If my kids were to demand that I write everything down, I’d kick their butts and tell them that I’ll let them know in my own time what my expectations are and what my teachings are, tailored to the time and place appropriate to their ability to understand what I am teaching, as life unfolds. As a Father, I will not be burdened by my children to write Dad’s big book of everything just so they can better argue with me about my teachings. Neither would that my job as Father unnecessary, as if they can simply flip open their handy Dad book to see what Dad would say. Instead, I think I will continue to actually SAY what Dad would say, authoritatively… Fathers are for more than just writing books, sacred or otherwise.

Nonetheless, infallible teachings of the Church can be 1) an act of the solemn magisterium (papal ex cathedra pronouncements or councilar decrees defining matters of faith and morals which have been approved by the pope), or 2) an act of the ordinary magisterium universally proclaimed (teachings which have been taught always and everywhere by Catholicism).

The solmen teachings can be more definitely sourced, since they come from papal ex cathedra pronouncement or ecumenical councils. The rest is more difficult, as this is an interpretation of what the magisterial teachings have been throughout history. Dogmaticians, like historians, often disagree. Yet we have a competent authority to resolve such disputes. The decisions of the Roman Pontiff remove any doubt on matters doctrinal that dogmaticians may have. For example, the inerrancy of Scripture is de fide dogma (infallible), but has never been defined as such by ex cathedra pronouncement or councilar definition. We know that it is de fide dogma, however, because Cardinal Ratzinger in a doctrinal commentary on *Professio Fide, *which was approved by Pope John Paul II includes inerrancy of Scritpure among the de fide dogmas (infallible) of Catholicism.

So, for those areas where there is a legitamite dubium (doubt) as to whether a doctrine is infallible or not, one can simply send a dubium to the Roman Pontiff and he sends a *respondsum ad dubium *to clarify to the faithful the status of the doctrine. This was done, for example, with respect to the ordination of women. It is infallible that women cannot be ordained as priests. No ex cathedra pronouncement, no councilar decree, but the Roman Pontiff has affirmed this is the ordinary universal teaching of the Church, which is also infallible.

See here for an example of a dubium and responsum ad dubium: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM

It is not as complex a rubic’s cube as dissidents would have us believe. We have a living magisterium (teaching office) and we don’t have to rely upon *sola traditio *or our own meager interpretation of past documents, but we can simply ask the Vicar of Christ and his judgment removes all doubt, giving us moral certainty as to what is and is not infallible dogma. Two-way communication is what Christ intended, not a correspondence course reliant upon interpretational skills.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

michaelp,

These are infallible statements. Most of history is a record of fallible statement that are not that important.

I disagree.

Heb 13:17 asserts …"Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you."

---

There’s no caveat that says “obey your leaders, only when they speak infallibly.” We are to obey, even in unimportant or so-called “little things.”

Luke 16:10 "He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much."

 

[dcdurel]

itsjustdave1988:

continued …

An analogy is likened to my kids if they were to demand a list of all the rules of the household be written down, and all of Dad’s teachings were to be all written down. My question would be why? Jesus wrote nothing down that we know of (other than scribbles in the sand). Why do Christians demand from Christ’s visiible teaching authority on earth more than what the incarnate Christ Himself provided? Christ established a Church, not a correspondence study program of all his written teachings. To demand that Christ Church depart from that which Christ himself established is rather absurd.

Faith comes from what is heard. We don’t need to write it all down because Christ left us a living teaching authority which he continuously guides to all truth. To have everything written down just so dogmaticians and dissidents have an easier time asserting their theories or dissenting from what is infallible is rather ridiculous. If my kids were to demand that I write everything down, I’d kick their butts and tell them that I’ll let them know in my own time what my expectations are and what my teachings are, tailored to the time and place appropriate to their ability to understand what I am teaching, as life unfolds. As a Father, I will not be burdened by my children to write Dad’s big book of everything just so they can better argue with me about my teachings. Neither would that my job as Father unnecessary, as if they can simply flip open their handy Dad book to see what Dad would say. Instead, I think I will continue to actually SAY what Dad would say, authoritatively… Fathers are for more than just writing books, sacred or otherwise.

Excellent!!!

Why do Christians demand from Christ’s visiible teaching authority on earth more than what the incarnate Christ Himself provided? Christ established a Church, not a correspondence study program of all his written teachings. To demand that Christ Church depart from that which Christ himself established is rather absurd."

I suppose because Protestantism demands a “written” word of God we have picked up their false idea and demand “written” teachings. We must remember that all Christ taught is the word of God, whether written in scripture or handed down without writing in Tradition. Since the Catechism contains a summary of God’s word in Tradition (non-written teachings) and Scripture the Pope teaches that it is a “sure norm for teaching the faith”.

Thus, we should be taught all of God’s teachings at mass during the homily, that is those in the Catechism, NOT only the scriptures.

But, as you say, since the Church is a LIVING teaching authority
the Catechism is not the ONLY norm for teaching the faith. The Church constantly teaches, especially through the Pope, thus at mass Catholics should be updated on the Popes teachings, since they are adapted to this time and place and he is teaching with the authority of Christ Himself.

 

[michaelp]

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.

So now it is possible to go to the vatican and get a list of all the infallible statements that have been made up to this point. Great! You need to let the others in on this . . . I guess you just did!

Thanks.

Since the average person does not need access to this, does this mean that it is not practical. But I thought that this is why Lisa says that we need the magisterium, so that things could stay practical.

Anyway, since you cannot get it for the average lay person, it is a book that people in seminary get???

Do you have copies of every statute and legal decision ever made in your jurisdiction?

My decisions are not infallible and binding on the entire church. If they were, I would not keep them to myself (secret?), but make them availible for everyone since I would be serving as the mouthpeice of God. If I did not, I would not be using my gift for the edification of the Church, living and dead (1 Cor 12).

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Greyhawk:

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

But we just don’t have access with certianty to this information? This does not really help anything.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

I would say that you need to read Paul where he instructs the faithful to hold fast to the “the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” If you don’t accept all of the deposit of faith that comprises Catholic tradition, you will never know which of the letters written by the first Catholics that you must accept as inspired by God.

That was a dodge if I ever saw one. I am willing to look “tradition” over and give it a shot. Just give me the list . . . oh, you don’t have one. Sorry, too big of a leap of faith to trust in something that you don’t have true access to.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Matt16_18:

If you want to know what infallible teachings of the Church have been solemnly defined by the extraordinary exercise of the magisterium of Christ’s church, then all you need to do is buy yourself a copy of:Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum.
33rd edition.
Heinrich Joseph Denzinger & A. Schönmetzer.
B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, 1965.The English version of “Denzinger-Schönmetzer” would be published as:Sources of Catholic Dogma, 30th edition,
Heinrich Joseph Denzinger
B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, 1957(A reprint of the above can be bought for $29.95)

Great! Finally. Why didn’t anyone give this to me before. So this is an infallible list of *all *the infallible teachings of the church?

I will buy it!!

Michael

 

[michaelp]

How can you tell if a teaching is dogma or doctrine? Entire courses in dogmatic theology are written to address this question. In short, normally, an infallible dogma is discerned based upon the manner and repetition in which it is taught, the authority of the words use (eg. anathema language, “we define as part of Catholic and Divine faith”, etc.).

So here we have the problem restated in your own words. “Entire courses in dogmatic theology” cannot answer the question “where does infallibility lie?”

And you accuse the Protestants of subjectivity. This means by which you claim to overcome subjectivity of interpretation, first must be found (an no one can agree) and then be interpreted itself.

Sorry, I will just stick with the Scriptures and the clear teaching of the regula fidei in Church history. I have access to those.

Thanks for all the info, it has helped.

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

continued …

An analogy is likened to my kids if they were to demand a list of all the rules of the household be written down, and all of Dad’s teachings were to be all written down. My question would be why? Jesus wrote nothing down that we know of (other than scribbles in the sand). Why do Christians demand from Christ’s visiible teaching authority on earth more than what the incarnate Christ Himself provided? Christ established a Church, not a correspondence study program of all his written teachings. To demand that Christ Church depart from that which Christ himself established is rather absurd.

Faith comes from what is heard. We don’t need to write it all down because Christ left us a living teaching authority which he continuously guides to all truth. To have everything written down just so dogmaticians and dissidents have an easier time asserting their theories or dissenting from what is infallible is rather ridiculous. If my kids were to demand that I write everything down, I’d kick their butts and tell them that I’ll let them know in my own time what my expectations are and what my teachings are, tailored to the time and place appropriate to their ability to understand what I am teaching, as life unfolds. As a Father, I will not be burdened by my children to write Dad’s big book of everything just so they can better argue with me about my teachings. Neither would that my job as Father unnecessary, as if they can simply flip open their handy Dad book to see what Dad would say. Instead, I think I will continue to actually SAY what Dad would say, authoritatively… Fathers are for more than just writing books, sacred or otherwise.

Nonetheless, infallible teachings of the Church can be 1) an act of the solemn magisterium (papal ex cathedra pronouncements or councilar decrees defining matters of faith and morals which have been approved by the pope), or 2) an act of the ordinary magisterium universally proclaimed (teachings which have been taught always and everywhere by Catholicism).

The solmen teachings can be more definitely sourced, since they come from papal ex cathedra pronouncement or ecumenical councils. The rest is more difficult, as this is an interpretation of what the magisterial teachings have been throughout history. Dogmaticians, like historians, often disagree. Yet we have a competent authority to resolve such disputes. The decisions of the Roman Pontiff remove any doubt on matters doctrinal that dogmaticians may have. For example, the inerrancy of Scripture is de fide dogma (infallible), but has never been defined as such by ex cathedra pronouncement or councilar definition. We know that it is de fide dogma, however, because Cardinal Ratzinger in a doctrinal commentary on *Professio Fide, *which was approved by Pope John Paul II includes inerrancy of Scritpure among the de fide dogmas (infallible) of Catholicism.

So, for those areas where there is a legitamite dubium (doubt) as to whether a doctrine is infallible or not, one can simply send a dubium to the Roman Pontiff and he sends a *respondsum ad dubium *to clarify to the faithful the status of the doctrine. This was done, for example, with respect to the ordination of women. It is infallible that women cannot be ordained as priests. No ex cathedra pronouncement, no councilar decree, but the Roman Pontiff has affirmed this is the ordinary universal teaching of the Church, which is also infallible.

See here for an example of a dubium and responsum ad dubium: ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM

It is not as complex a rubic’s cube as dissidents would have us believe. We have a living magisterium (teaching office) and we don’t have to rely upon *sola traditio *or our own meager interpretation of past documents, but we can simply ask the Vicar of Christ and his judgment removes all doubt, giving us moral certainty as to what is and is not infallible dogma. Two-way communication is what Christ intended, not a correspondence course reliant upon interpretational skills.

So again, here is what it comes down to. You have to submit to the list of Traditions that you don’t have access to which is itself a fallible list of infallible traditions that interpret an infallible book. Wow!! Fun and interesting.

What it comes down to Dave is that you have alot more faith than I do. I will trust the Scriptures. They are sitting right in front of me. You submit to the Traditions which you don’t have access to and no one seems to agree as to what they are.

Hope that you are having a good Saturday.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

I suppose because Protestantism demands a “written” word of God we have picked up their false idea and demand “written” teachings. We must remember that all Christ taught is the word of God, whether written in scripture or handed down without writing in Tradition. Since the Catechism contains a summary of God’s word in Tradition (non-written teachings) and Scripture the Pope teaches that it is a “sure norm for teaching the faith”.

Careful. The concept of writting is only an articulated form of communication that can be preserved unlike speech. Therefore, do protestants want God’s word in an articulated for of preserved communication? Yes. Can word of mouth do this? NO!

Thanks.

Michael

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Great! Finally. Why didn’t anyone give this to me before. So this is an infallible list of *all *the infallible teachings of the church?

I will buy it!!

Michael

Hello Michael You are more legalistic than you claim us to be I am convinced the diabolic powers that be are keeping you from reading about the Saints:nope: Why,because if you did you would see the fruit of obedience,faith,grace and all the signs that you look for in the magestarium.The union with God and total abandonment of their own will to the will of God is beyond words.If you would read some and reflect on you would go to a priest and ask him where do I sign.God Bless

 

[michaelp]

Lisa4Catholics:

Hello Michael You are more legalistic than you claim us to be I am convinced the diabolic powers that be are keeping you from reading about the Saints:nope: Why,because if you did you would see the fruit of obedience,faith,grace and all the signs that you look for in the magestarium.The union with God and total abandonment of their own will to the will of God is beyond words.If you would read some and reflect on you would go to a priest and ask him where do I sign.God Bless

Thanks again Lisa, I have read the Saints for years. I will continue to do so.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

Thanks again Lisa, I have read the Saints for years. I will continue to do so.

I hope you go to the site on my signature If you are drawn to the lives of the saints then I am not going to worry about it.God will show you,the Holy spirit will draw you and Jesus will rejoice,in His time not mine So Michael how much do you have to bug Our Lord for Him to get tired of it?He probably laughs when He hears me at it again God Bless

 

[itsjustdave1988]

michaelp,

You still don’t get it. Are you asking questions because you want to know, or are your just wanting to be argumentative? If it is the former, I recommend you attempt to take of your Protestant glasses off for just a moment, and view the Church without Protestant bias toward epistemology.

The Catholic Church is NOT LIKE PROTESTANTISM. Neither is Orthodoxy LIKE PROTESTANTISM. Don’t you find that curious? Why do the Churches that can trace their history to the first century differ so drastically with purely Protestant epistemology?

Catholcis don’t have to have ANYTHING WRITTEN DOWN to function as a Church. Do you get that? We don’t need to have a list of anything, infallible or otherwise. We have lawful pastors, and we obey them because of their Divinely ordained authority. I don’t know how to explain that more simply than that. If you can’t get that ALL that Catholics needs to know is to be found in incarnate PEOPLE, Christ-like teachers ordained by God to their office, just like in NT times, then help me to know better how to explain it to you. Letters are really neat and useful. Paul used them to communicate, but he did not BIND his own teachings into ONLY written form. He actually visited the communities he wrote to, or sent PEOPLE who represented him. He had more to say than what he WROTE.

You are demanding that Catholicism mimic the faulty Protestant epistemological principles that suggests that EVERYTHING important ought to be written down. What I am telling you is that your epistemological principle is neither Scriptural or an historically accurate depiction of Christian epistemology of the first century, the second century, the third century, etc. etc.

Only PROTESTANTS have drawn the faulty conclusion that if its worth knowing, if its authoritative, IT MUST BE WRITTEN DOWN. Christ never taught such a thing. The apostles rejected such a methodology. Catholics and Orthodoxy (60% of all Christians today) also continue to reject this mind set.

You can shake an frustrated fist at this ancient Christian epistemology, but that won’t really help you to understand it.

We will not EVER have Christ’s teaching written down. That deposit of faith from the first century is exactly as Scripture says it is, a tradition (Gk “paradosis”) that is handed on (Gk “paradidomi”).

Handing one (“paradidomi”) the deposit of faith, if you take the Greek word “paradidomi” literally translated, is the same as “traditioning” it to others. That tradition was in NT times and will forever be ORAL AND WRITTEN. I get that you think everything was written down. Please also get that we disagree with this PROTESTANT ONLY theory.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Can word of mouth do this? NO!

Yes, it can. Jesus wrote nothing down, but ONLY relied upon WORD OF MOUTH. It seems you reject the modus operandi of Jesus Christ and the Christian Church since the first century onwards.

The NT Church relied upon WORD OF MOUTH to teach authoritatively. For example, Matthew speaks of a prophesy that “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matt 2:23). Was this prophesy written down? If so, I cannot find it anywhere in the OT. Matthew speaks of it as though his audience is obviously familiar with this prophesy. How do they know about this unwritten prophesy? Word of mouth, perhaps?

That oral tradition was authoritative before the advent of Christianity and for the apostles and the NT Church is a FACT of the Bible that Protesantism seems to pretend didn’t exist. The majority of Christians, in fact ALL Christians EXCEPT Protestants view oral tradition as authoritative, JUST AS THE APOSTLES DID, as did the early Church…

According to Protestant Church historian, JND Kelly:

“It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48)

According to Protestant scholar Ellen Flessman-Van Leer:

"For Irenaeus, . . . tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing…

Irenaeus and Tertullian point to*** the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles***, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, ***apostolic succession occupies the ***same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers." (Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church, p.188)

I understand that Protestantism asserts the theory that the NT oral tradition as all written down in the Bible, therefore, all apostolic tradition is not written in the Bible. However, please cite the chapter and verse that says this, otherwise, it is ironically enough, just a Protestant TRADITION.

 

[michaelp]

itsjustdave1988:

michaelp,

You still don’t get it.

No! That is the point of this thread. Alot of people don’t know where to go for infallibility. It is not just me Dave.

Are you asking questions because you want to know, or are your just wanting to be argumentative?

You are right. I think that all the info that is availible on this subject has been exhausted. There is not much point in continuing in the direction that we are going.

If it is the former, I recommend you attempt to take of your Protestant glasses off for just a moment, and view the Church without Protestant bias toward epistemology.

That is what I have been trying to do. Rememeber, Protestants are free to think without sunglasses, Roman Catholics are not. So it is not I whom am overly limited by a forced perspective.

The Catholic Church is NOT LIKE PROTESTANTISM. Neither is Orthodoxy LIKE PROTESTANTISM. Don’t you find that curious?

Why do the Churches that can trace their history to the first century differ so drastically with purely Protestant epistemology?

Actually, epistimologically and historically speaking, Protestant and Roman Catholics are much more alike than Orthodox. We do theology cataphatically, and the orthodox apophatically. Our epistimology is very simular. Our authority is not. Protestants and Orthodox have more simular authorities than either group and Rome. We both elevate scripture to the supreme status and make it the sole test for infallibility. In other word, we are more alike in this respect to the Orthodox than you are. Infallibility, as defined according to modern Roman Catholicism does not have history prior to the 13th century.

Catholcis don’t have to have ANYTHING WRITTEN DOWN to function as a Church. Do you get that?

Yes, because you don’t have a choice.

We don’t need to have a list of anything, infallible or otherwise.

But you are expected to follow something that you don’t know. You follow the pope and no one know what he has said that is infallible.

We have lawful pastors, and we obey them because of their Divinely ordained authority.

So do we. And . . .

Cont . . .

 

[michaelp]

I don’t know how to explain that more simply than that. If you can’t get that ALL that Catholics needs to know is to be found in incarnate PEOPLE

,

Completely subjective–in fact, this is the very definition of subjectivity. And you call us subjective? I wonder why God even bothered writting Scripture if ALL that we need to know if found in the subjective elements of individuals.

If someone were to come to this site and see the “incarnate people” discussing “ALL that Catholics need to know” they would only find alot of disagreements and controversy. Do you think that the incarnate people of this thead have done a good job of giving ALL that people need to know. They can’t even agree about where to find infallibility.

I am not trying to be difficult and I will cease with this post. But you must understand how inconsistant and self-defeating your position is. If you want to take a blind leap of faith, that is great. But I will trust in God’s word through Ps 119. It only mentions Scripture.

Christ-like teachers ordained by God to their office, just like in NT times, then help me to know better how to explain it to you. Letters are really neat and useful. Paul used them to communicate, but he did not BIND his own teachings into ONLY written form. He actually visited the communities he wrote to, or sent PEOPLE who represented him. He had more to say than what he WROTE.

OK then show me the infallible list of Paul’s other teachings and prove to me they are authentically apostolic. This is the criteria that the Scripture meets when we do text criticism and canon criticism. But for some reason you thing unwritten tradition does not have to meet the same criteria.

You are demanding that Catholicism mimic the faulty Protestant epistemological principles that suggests that EVERYTHING important ought to be written down.

No, just basic comon sense principles. Remember we are to love the Lord with all our mind as well. We cannot check them in at the Church door and accept whatever we are told.

What I am telling you is that your epistemological principle

Dave, what principle is this? Can you tell me the epistemological principle that I am using and is not found?

Only PROTESTANTS have drawn the faulty conclusion that if its worth knowing, if its authoritative, IT MUST BE WRITTEN DOWN.

No, that it must be communitcated and articulated in a form that is availible to all the Church. Not some secret tradition that can be passed down but cannot be passed on. It is very Gnostic.

Christ never taught such a thing. The apostles rejected such a methodology. Catholics and Orthodoxy (60% of all Christians today) also continue to reject this mind set.

That is why the Scripture is the most well attested to ancient document that the world has ever seen. That is why there are more translations of it and extant ancient manuscripts than any other writting of all of history. Because people do not care to much about the written word preserving accurately a message.

I don’t think that you really believe this. I think it is you that has your sunglasses on.

You can shake an frustrated fist at this ancient Christian epistemology, but that won’t really help you to understand it.

And what was the ancient Church epistomology?

Arn’t you concerned about the epistomology of Scripture and the great commanment to love the Lord with all your mind, not to check your brains in at the door.