Infallible Papal Statements

[michaelp]

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”).

The paradosis was the Gospel. Therefore, we do have it written down.

You just fill the word Tradition with your presuppositions. It is not some separate infallible message other than that of Scripture. It is the regula fide and only is infallible to the degree that it represents Scripture.

Both Protestants and Orthodox agree on this:

“Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ‘sources of revelation’ must be rejected. The two are correlative. We affirm (1) that Scripture is the main criterion whereby the church tests traditions to determine whether they are truly part of the Holy Tradition or not; (2) that Holy Tradition completes Holy Scriptures in the since that it safeguards the integrity of the biblical message.”

–Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue: The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’sSeminary Press, 1985), 50-51

I completely agree with this definition of authority. What a great statement!

So it does not seem as if it is me who is disconnected. You need to relook at history’s (prior to 13th century’s) definition of tradition. You may be really enlightened. But read unbiased scholars on the issue as well as Protestant and Roman Catholics. Then make up your mind. But this may too difficult for you since it would require you to place your belief in the Roman Church in limbo (no pun intened ).

Here is a great book to see the Evangelical perspective.

amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885767749/qid=1108237377/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4799633-1097447?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Sorry that I may seem so difficult. You must remember that this is my life, my children, my devotion to my God, and my eternity that is in question with these issues. I am not going to just believe some “infallible Tradition” without having some evidence. And the evidence, biblically and historically, is really lacking.

I will sign off this thread for now since it seems like I am coming across uncharitable. I don’t want to be seen that way.

Still your brother.

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

But you are expected to follow something that you don’t know.

Rubbish. I obey my pastor, Fr. Brad. If I don’t know what he is teaching, I simply ask him. I also obey my Bishop, Michael Sheridan. Likewise, if I dont’ know what he is teaching, I just ask. I also obey the pope, John Paul II, who I can also simply ask if I am not familiar with his teachings. All of these obey Christ. So, my epistemology does not require me to be an expert exeget, and expert in textual criticism, an expert in the history of canonization so that I might determine for myself which Bible version is correct, which translation is most accurate, I don’t have to wonder if Hebrews is really part of Scripture or is it rejected from the canon as Luther opined, etc. etc.

I simply obey the leaders Divinely ordained to care for my soul (Heb 13:17). In what way am I asked to “follow something I don’t know?”

 

[michaelp]

OK, just one more . . .

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.

You are wrong. You forget a vital element that was promised to the Apostle’s alone:

**John 14:26 **26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

The Holy Spirit caused them to remember so that they could preach and hand over their teachings both through word of mouth and Scriptures. Once they died, we had to rely upon Scriptures to represent what they taught. That is why only Scripture is called theonoustos (“God breathed”).

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?

See above.

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…

Both Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants do believe in tradition. But tradition is just the regula fidei which was a summary of Scripture.

According to Protestant Church historian, JND Kelly:
According to Protestant scholar Ellen Flessman-Van Leer:

These quote are great. They show that tradition was equated with the message of Scripture in the early Church. I agree. Tradition is accurate to the degree it agrees with the Scriptures. Obviously, the Scriptures are the only tangible thing that we have to test tradition by.

OK, unless you say, “Michael, Please come back, I really want to keep discussing this with you.” I believe that you may be irritated with me and this discussion is not productive for you all anymore.

If so, I have had fun and learned alot. Even if we disagree, this is the best was to think through the issues, wouldn’t you agree?

Have a great day,

Michael

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for Catholic and Orthodox epistemology in contrast to Protestantism, here’s a little quiz for you:

Is the following a paraphrase from a 1) a Catholic source, 2) an Orthodox source, or 3) a Protestant source?

"What the Lord gave us, what the Holy Apostles preached, and what the Fathers of the Church preserved are the very foundations of orthodoxy, its paradosis. All opinion, speculation, and theological thought must be measured against the criterion of Holy Tradition. Our tradition has reached us through historical reality, through our forefathers, through our paradosis, which is practically given to us: through the customs, habits, and worldviews of our forefathers.

I ask the same question for this paraphrase:

Christianity is precisely the Church, in the fullness of her life and ‘existence.’ It is in the Church that the ‘deposit of Faith’ has been kept until now through all the ages of her historical existence, and it is by the authority of the Church that all Christian doctrines and beliefs have been, and still are, handed down and commended from generation to generation,and are again received precisely in obedience to the Church and in loyalty to her continuous and identical Tradition.

And for this paraphrase:

***According to St. Cyprian’s doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church. ***If there are disputes in a local church, that church should have recourse to the Roman Church, for there is contained the Tradition which is preserved by all the churches.

Hint: they are not Protestant.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

OK, just one more . . .

You are wrong. You forget a vital element that was promised to the Apostle’s alone:

**John 14:26 **26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

The Holy Spirit caused them to remember so that they could preach and hand over their teachings both through word of mouth and Scriptures. Once they died, we had to rely upon Scriptures to represent what they taught. That is why only Scripture is called theonoustos (“God breathed”).

See above.

Both Eastern Orthodox and Evangelical Protestants do believe in tradition. But tradition is just the regula fidei which was a summary of Scripture.

These quote are great. They show that tradition was equated with the message of Scripture in the early Church. I agree. Tradition is accurate to the degree it agrees with the Scriptures. Obviously, the Scriptures are the only tangible thing that we have to test tradition by.

OK, unless you say, “Michael, Please come back, I really want to keep discussing this with you.” I believe that you may be irritated with me and this discussion is not productive for you all anymore.

If so, I have had fun and learned alot. Even if we disagree, this is the best was to think through the issues, wouldn’t you agree?

Have a great day,

Michael

Hello Michael Horse puck.Once the apostles died the authority did not get taken away it continued Judas would not have to have been replaced,Church structure, Priests, pastors and everything else would have been made irrellevant.You are confining God to Scriptures and taking away the authority that He set up Himself.Good grief You try to analyze things to death.You make alot of sense in alot of issues but you refuse to accept any authority.Why is it so hard for you to believe?Why do you think they found Peter the apostles bones and grave under the main alter at the Vatican?Why are there Eucharistic Miracles if communion is merely symbolic?Why are there still incorruptables?Why is it does the satanist hate us so much and mock everything about the Mass.Why do they go out of their way to try to desecrate the Eucharist if it is only symbolic?Just some questions to think about.God Bless

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This is actually a rather fun quiz, so I think I’ll continue …

Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant?

***Evangelicalism takes many of its theological ideas—its novel ecclesiology, its notion of Scriptural primacy, and its emphasis on personal revelation—from the Reformation; many of its more unsavory elements—a disdain for tradition—are the products of rural America. ***

Catholic, Orthdox, or Protestant?

***There are, in the Church, two ways of theology; two levels, as it were, at which the divine truth might be approached. The first of these, essential theology, proceeds out of the spirit of the Church, from the very experience of the God-bearing Fathers, who, in their theological writings and expressions, bring to full bloom the sweet-scented flower of their spiritual vision. And this flower is nourished by the very Vine of the Faith, rooted in the same vineyard where Saints, Martyrs, and Confessors have toiled for centuries untold, and planted in the sure foundation of the truth itself. ***

Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant?

***It is imperative that we understand, then, the singular attitude of the Church toward Scripture and Tradition. To do so is to understand the correct, true attitude of the Church. After all, it was out of the Church Herself that Scripture arose. It was in the bosom of the Church that Scripture and Tradition matured. They are her domain and She alone fully and correctly understands them. ***

Answer: all of the above come from Orthodox sources, but could have easily been written by Catholics. Protestant authors? … not likely.

 

[teajay]

michaelp:

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.

Michael, I never claimed that there was an infallible list. I simply said that all infallible documents are contained in some form within the Church. None of the laity really need to access the documents themselves, because the clergy has the role of disseminating and applying them. If we were required to apply them ourselves, then you would be correct. But we are not. Having said that, anyone can access them. Most are available through the internet in one form or another.

michaelp:

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???

You sound like a smart guy, so I guess now your just being silly on purpose. Why do you keep talking of some “book”? The purpose of these infallible documents is to act as an authoritative standard which feeds down to the laity via the clergy. The clergy are as crucial in this sense as the documents themselves. The laity is not called upon to read them all for themselves, and then act in the manner they believe to best reflect the teachings of those documents. That is applying protestant logic to Catholic practices.

michaelp:

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).

Perhaps I did not make my analogy clear enough. The point is that just because you don’t fully inform yourself of the content of all primary legal documents, doesn’t mean you cannot be a law abiding citizen. The media, the government and legal community all ensure that you have enough information to comply with societies legal rules. The mere fact you do not study them all doesn’t mean they are hidden or lack authority. The reason you obey them is because they do have authority. These legal documents have such authority that they influence your day to day life in a real way. The mere fact that some disobey them doesn’t mean that they have no authority, or are useless. In a very real way, they, plus the law enforcement mechanisms of your society, are the framework that makes your society run.

In the Catholic Church, the laity don’t inform themselves of the contents of all infallible documents. The clergy, and to a lesser extent, apologists and other Catholics, ensure that the laity is informed of all relevant teachings. The mere fact that Catholics rarely read them doesn’t mean they are hidden or lack authority. The reason we obey them is because they do have authority. These church documents in a very real way influence the day to day life of the laity. The mere fact that some disobey them doesn’t mean that they have no authority, or are useless. In a very real way, they, plus the church authorities, for the framework that makes the church run.

 

[Matt16_18]

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?

All? You asked for a list of infallible doctrines that have received by the faithful through the extraordinary exercise of the magisterium of the church. Is this a list of all possible infallible statements concerning faith and morals? No, of course not.

Perhaps you simply do not understand what “infallible” means. A statement that is infallible is a statement that is true. The Catholic Church does not claim to have the charism of being able to speak infallibly about all matters of knowledge; her charism of infallibility only extends to matters concerning faith and morals.

For the moment, let us apply the arguments that you have been making not to matters of faith, but to matters pertaining to mathematics:
michaelp: Produce for me a list of every mathematical truth!

mathemetician: Such a list cannot be created. Not even the most brilliant mathematician can tell you everything that is true about math. If you want to know what mathematicians know about math, then go to our math library where we have a copy of every math book that has ever been written. Or come speak to our math faculty with a specific question and they will be able to help you solve your specific problem.

michaelp: That isn’t practical! Not only do you not have a list of every mathematical truth; you don’t have a list at all.

mathemetician: I have told you that a list of every mathematical truth is impossible to produce. However, mathematicians do have books containing mathematical truths - we just don’t have a comprehensive list of every single possible mathematical truth.

michaelp That was a dodge if I ever saw one. Thanks for your opinion.Anyone can see that such an argument with a mathematician would be absurd. No sane person demands that a mathematician must produce a list of every true statement in math before he can be an authority in mathematics. Yet you insist that because the Catholic Church cannot produce a list of every true statement about matters pertaining to God that she cannot be an authority about matters of faith. It is an absurd arguement because the truths that one could write down about God are infinitely greater that all the mathematical truths that could ever be written down.

Do you now understand why it is totally unreasonable to ask for a list of every infallible statement that can be made about matters of faith?

 

[david_francis]

Michael, my dear brother in Christ,

I am trying to understand some of the things you have said. For example, in post # 99 you said:

michaelp:

,

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. …

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.

Earlier you said you believe that 66 books of the Bible are infallible. Do you “check your brain” before reading them? If so, is this your reason for seeking infallible statements? If not, why do you assume Catholics turn off their brain when exposed to infallible papal statements?
You also said (in post #64)

michaelp:

Rightly interpreted Scripture is always infallible being theonoustos

(“God breathed”).
Are you saying only “rightly interpreted” scripture is infallible?
In post # 99, in response to the idea of whether other writings of Paul were inspired, you said:

michaelp:

,

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.QUOTE]

Are you saying that the criteria for infallibility is text and canon criticism? Are these infallible methods for proving infallible statements? Because otherwise:

michaelp:
I guess that you can make the Bible say anything you want if you use your imagination.

michaelp:

,

prove to me they are authentically apostolic.
Are you saying that in order for a statement to be infallible, it must be transmitted via the apostles? Why limit God?

michaelp:

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!
Interesting opinion. Are you saying that even if God wished this to be done, it is impossible?
In reference to 2Thes. 2:15 you said:

michaelp:

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.

Are you saying that Paul had already approved all of the Gospels when he wrote that? Or just the Gospel message as preserved in written form?
It is interesting that you believe:

michaelp:
You forget a vital element that was promised to the Apostle’s alone:

**John 14:26 **26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

The Holy Spirit caused them to remember so that they could preach and hand over their teachings both through word of mouth and Scriptures. Once they died, we had to rely upon Scriptures to represent what they taught. That is why only Scripture is called theonoustos (“God breathed”).

If we had anything in addition to Scripture to rely upon, would they no longer be theonoustos? Do you think the work of the Holy Spirit ended with the death of the last apostle? Do you find it impossible to consider that the Holy Spirit might continue to work within the Church? And, if so, do you consider the work of the Holy Spirit fallible?
To go back:

michaelp:
You forget a vital element that was promised to the Apostle’s alone:/QUOTE]
Interesting opinion.

To Be Continued:

 

[david_francis]

In response to Dave’s statement that:

itsjustdave1988:
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”).

you said

michaelp:

The paradosis was the Gospel. Therefore, we do have it written down.

Are you saying that every infallible statement made by Jesus was preserved in scripture? If not, why do you think Jesus bothered to have the Holy Spirit help the apostles remember all things rather than just enough to go into scripture?

Like you, I learn a great deal from this forum. When I read your statement that:

michaelp:

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

it made me wonder, what does “regula fidei” mean?

I found a reference to it in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College.

There I read:

*The ante-Nicene church never considered as the Rule of Faith the Bible or any part of it. … It is quite evident that in the oldest and most explicit witnesses for the use of the word, Iren浳 and Tertullian, this was known primarily as the rule of faith. When the former (I., ix. 4) says “he who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism,” the expression “rule of truth” can not mean any sum total of truths as to which instruction has been conveyed before or after baptism, but only a formula which the neophyte has made his own by a profession of faith made at the time of baptism. This was “the faith,” which the convert received from the teaching Church and was to keep as the standard for his subsequent life and for the testing of all doctrines presented to him. *

So it’s great to see that you already have access to the faith as received from the teaching Church.

I appreciate your assistance in helping me. Forgive me if some of these items have drifted off subject a bit. I simply wish to learn.

michaelp:

I am not going to just believe some “infallible Tradition” without having some evidence. And the evidence, biblically and historically, is really lacking.

Thomas said the same thing when the others claimed a resurrected Christ had appeared. You are in good company.

Still your brother,

David Francis

Christ died to take away our sins, not our brains.

 

[Uracan]

So you simply obey your pastor, your bishop, your pope? Would you still obey your superiors if they did something clearly illegal or immoral? Blind obedience has gotten Catholics in more hot water than anything else

 

[Matt16_18]

Uracan:

Would you still obey your superiors if they did something clearly illegal or immoral?

Of course not. If your priest told you to do something immoral, it would be your duty as a follower of Christ to disobey him.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Unless I have got it wrong somehow(?)Michael

Probably. But anything you might have said has been lost in a storm of rhetoric. It seems that you have oscillated between using terms like ‘irenic and gracious’ (before you attempted to enroll us in reading your website articles) to actually posting comments which are quite a bit less than irenic and gracious. Give it a break.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ahimsaman72:

Not every authority instituted is correct or by nature infallible.

Agreed.

ahimsaman72:

I’ve seen all the arguments for authority of the church given to Peter

Excellent.

ahimsaman72:

So, you don’t have to go there.

Judging for what you say after this, evidently a little reminding is in order.

ahimsaman72:

Let’s bring this into the arena of politics (oh boy!).

OK, let’s.

ahimsaman72:

President X is in authority. President X says men must have many wives. President X says this is the new law. As long as you follow this law, you are doing what your government says and are in good standing with him and his government.

D-oh! False analogy. I knew you shouldn’t have gone there. But you didn’t like the story of how Peter got the Church. So you made one up of your own. Am I surprised?

ahimsaman72:

Now, wait a minute - you wouldn’t go for that - would you?

Probably not.

ahimsaman72:

Even though he is the president you wouldn’t agree to that. It goes against your *conscience *and your religious beliefs. So, what to do? Obey the law of the land or obey the law of your conscience? I say - go with the conscience.

Good man. There is (some) hope for you yet.

Oh, by the way the law of the land and the authoritative teaching of the Church are two completely different things. Apples and oranges. Sorry, did I say false analogy? I meant apples and oranges.

Oh, by the way again, how do you know it’s your conscience without referring to the authoritative teaching of the Church? Oh, silly me. I forgot. The supremacy of the individual. Or should I say the infallible supremacy of the individual?

ahimsaman72:

Peace

And to you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

I guess that you can make the Bible say anything you want if you use your imagination.

Can we quote you on that?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I guess that you can make the Bible say anything you want if you use your imagination.

Can we quote you on that?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ahimsaman72:

Everything you say is based on the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

No. On history. History included the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus made the deposit of faith to the Church. The only Church around at that time was the Catholic Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

ahimsaman72:

Thank you - I will. I spoke in haste. I value Catholicism highly. I’ve said many times that I appreciate the beauty of it. I just haven’t gotten to a point where I am comfortable in both heart and mind with aspects of it.

Peace…

The world of Catholicism is larger than a discussion board. Perhaps you respond better to sacred painting (or does that bring up fears of idolatry?) Perhaps you respond better to sacred music. Perhaps you respond better to pilgrimmage? Prayer and meditation? If your fear has been that by accepting the teaching authority of the Catholic Church your uniqueness will be lost to the world and to yourself, then your fears are unfounded. Whatever gifts you have been given are for you to use.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

I will sign off this thread for now since it seems like I am coming across uncharitable. I don’t want to be seen that way.

Uncharitable? Whew. If you don’t want to be seen that way, then don’t act that way.

The impression you have left with me (and I have only encountered you since some time today) is that you have approached new threads as though butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth and then you have asked disingenuous questions. What has followed is your point of view which has consisted of a list of unsupported assertions. When asked, for the benefit of discussion, to offer support for your assertions, you have sidestepped the requests. When any of your assertions have been challenged, you have either sidestepped the challenge or have posed a counter challenge. You have indulged in reductio ad absurdem not to clarify but to obfuscate, and your method of developing an idea has been to list non sequiturs, circular reasoning, false analogies and so on. It seems to me that you have not argued on the issues and that your version of robust debate has been far more robust than debate.

It seems to me also that you have attempted to engage in discussions on fairly advanced Catholic teaching. It is obvious that, in spite of very generous and extensively detailed posts by several of us on more than one thread, that this advanced teaching is beyond your ken at the present time. It puzzles me why you have not contented yourself with more basic teaching. But then I do not think you have been visiting this board in the capacity of a student. I believe you have been visiting this board in the capacity of a teacher.

What was it that cometh before the Fall? Oh yes, Summer.

 

[michaelp]

Ani Ibi:

Uncharitable? Whew. If you don’t want to be seen that way, then don’t act that way.

The impression you have left with me (and I have only encountered you since some time today) is that you have approached new threads as though butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth and then you have asked disingenuous questions. What has followed is your point of view which has consisted of a list of unsupported assertions. When asked, for the benefit of discussion, to offer support for your assertions, you have sidestepped the requests. When any of your assertions have been challenged, you have either sidestepped the challenge or have posed a counter challenge. You have indulged in reductio ad absurdem not to clarify but to obfuscate, and your method of developing an idea has been to list non sequiturs, circular reasoning, false analogies and so on. It seems to me that you have not argued on the issues and that your version of robust debate has been far more robust than debate.

It seems to me also that you have attempted to engage in discussions on fairly advanced Catholic teaching. It is obvious that, in spite of very generous and extensively detailed posts by several of us on more than one thread, that this advanced teaching is beyond your ken at the present time. It puzzles me why you have not contented yourself with more basic teaching. But then I do not think you have been visiting this board in the capacity of a student. I believe you have been visiting this board in the capacity of a teacher.

What was it that cometh before the Fall? Oh yes, Summer.

Ummm . . . all assertations? You have alot of energy! You seem really mad at me.

I still think that you need to get a dictionary and look up your definitions .

Thanks for the encouragment!

Michael