So since we’ve already lost, you must now tell us by what authority do you accept your 66 books as inspired?their infallible knowledge of something, they need to back up and think for a second. Here is the issue. How do YOU, individual Catholic, move from FALLIBILITY, to infallibility about anything? And please, once you start using your FALLIBLE reasoning to answer, you have already lost
- Status
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Well, Kaycee, I admit that I’m not very knowledgable about those incidents…so as for me I will either read up about them or wait for someone more knowledgable to respond in the meantime.
However, regarding the Pelagian issue there seems to be an obvious flaw with using that against the Papacy, if it in fact happened…(this is just going from what’s in your post; I’m not familiar with the incident beyond that).
However, regarding the Pelagian issue there seems to be an obvious flaw with using that against the Papacy, if it in fact happened…(this is just going from what’s in your post; I’m not familiar with the incident beyond that).
It seems that the Pope was only defending what he thought to be Pelagian’s understanding, hence the fact that he had neglected to “inquire rigorously”, which means he failed to look into the matter properly before saying “Pelagian is right!” Now, the doctrine of infallibility only applies to matters of Faith and morals, not regarding the Pope’s opinions of people. Therefore, if the Pope today said of Cardinal So-and-so “The Cardinal’s beliefs are absolutely right!” and he believed the cardinal believed adultery was wrong (but the cardinal in fact taught that adultery was okay) the substance of the Pope’s statement (and the only candidate for infallibility among that information) is that adultery is wrong. He is mistaken about the perception that the heretical Cardinal agrees with him, but whether or not the Cardinal is teaching correctly (aside from the fact that if he contradicts the substance of the Pope’s statement, he obviously isn’t) falls outside of the realm of infallibility. In that same manner, the Pope in your story was apparently incorrect mainly in assuming that Pelagian’s theology said something it didn’t in fact say…his misjudgment was not of the heretical doctrine, but of the man whose theory he apparently didn’t realize held such a heretical doctrine. Big difference.
B
Brendan
Guest
SS,
In the Early Church, churches in several cites viewed the Epistle of Clement as being inspired Scripture. Others considered the Epistle of Barnabas to be the Word of God.
Still others rejected books such as Revelation and Jude.
So if you were alive then, you might hear a sermon based on the words of Barnabas, and would have Revelation rejected.
How could the correct Canon be determined using only the New Testament Protocanon?
How were the New Testament Deutrocanonals ( Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation) correctly added while excluding very fine (but entirely human) books , such as Barnabas and Clement?
In the Early Church, churches in several cites viewed the Epistle of Clement as being inspired Scripture. Others considered the Epistle of Barnabas to be the Word of God.
Still others rejected books such as Revelation and Jude.
So if you were alive then, you might hear a sermon based on the words of Barnabas, and would have Revelation rejected.
How could the correct Canon be determined using only the New Testament Protocanon?
How were the New Testament Deutrocanonals ( Hebrews, Jude, James and Revelation) correctly added while excluding very fine (but entirely human) books , such as Barnabas and Clement?
Let us throw the questin back at you. Mormons believe in the Book of Mormon because they too trust God (they believe the Book is superior to the Scriptures). Muslims believe the same thing about their Koran.
The question is, if I were a godless man you are trying to evangelize, why should I believe you and not them?
A
alexaustralia
Guest
Kaycee,
I am guessing you are talking about Pope Liberius (352-366AD) and the signing/endorsing of the Arian Creed; if that is the case you are mistaken. At that time Constantine’s son had become emperor and held Arian doctrine to be true, he persuaded several bishops to support him but the Pope didn’t give in. The Pope actually wrote a letter signed by 75 African Bishops condemning Aryanism and also rejected a letter by the emperor asking for support for Arian beliefs.
The emperor, still wanting for Aryanism to be held as orthodox, imprisoned Liberius in Milan in 357AD. Liberius after some years of being imprisoned was finally released giving to the belief that the Pope had finally given in to the emperor’s wishes, hence disproving the infallibility claim. Well if indeed the Pope had signed the creed, why was he received with a hero’s welcome back in Rome? and why did he then issue a decree stating that those bishops that supported Aryanism would be excommunicated? and why did the emperor never mention that he now had the Pope’s approval to show that the Pope was being hypocritical? Maybe because it did not happen. Now Athanasius did state in his writings that the Pope had signed the Arian creed but it is most likely he was misinformed as he was in hiding and would not have good sources to go by. But lets assume he did sign it, he did under harsh conditions were his free will was certainly compromised. He would have been coerced to endorse the document hence the case against infallibility would not hold in this matter as free will is required from the Pope in order to act infallibly.
I suggest you listen to “Pope fiction” series
Alex
R
runandsew
Guest
Pope fiction by Patrick Madrid mp3 format
If this link doesn’t work then search it on the ewtn audio library.
N
ncgolf
Guest
SolaScriptura;1869758:
SolaScriptura;1869758:
Yes it does by our definition. The Catholic viewpoint is that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magesterium are all necessary for the fullness of God’s revelation. SS only needs Scripture. The resources needed to study Sacred Scripture are not the issue.
SolaScriptura;1869758:
The problem is that Catholics see all three areas (SS, ST and Magestirium) as fully necssary. The Chuch stands on those three pillars. We argue all 3, you argue 1 … we start in 2 different places. So if you cannot accept the other 2 there is no ground zero. I dont intend that you accept the teaching but at least try to understand it. It is not unreasonable nor is it beyond what is possible. I am not even arguing that one cannot gleam some of God’s reveleation from Sacred Scripture but that for the fullness and richness of God’s plan it cannot happen with Scripture alone. Our arguments rest with the those three pillars. We cannot seperate them and use one against the other. Maybe I should substitute absolute assurance with the word faith. My faith rests in Jesus Christ, who is fully present in the Catholic Church and who said the Gates of Hell would never prevail against it. I would call that a pretty good assurance. I can’t prove my faith nor can I prove infallability is necessary. If I am in a better position it is only because of where I put my faith. It is of my own choice that I decide to put my spiritual life in the Catholic Church and all that she teaches.
K
kaycee
Guest
We should remember a few vital points. First, Zosimus claimed to have “maturely examined” the issue of the confession of Pelagius and Coelestus. He proclaimed them orthodox and Catholic, and gave instructions to the North Africans based upon his self-proclaimed authority.
Next, the North Africans rejected his instructions. Knowing full well what he intended, the North African bishops, including Augustine, stood their ground upon the basis of Scriptural teaching.
If a person today said, "I understand the bishop of Rome says X about such and such a person, and proclaims them orthodox on the basis of a mature examination, but I reject his conclusions based upon Scriptural teaching," would you identify that person as 1) Roman Catholic, or 2) Protestant?
Finally, it is obvious beyond question that Augustine did not take the view that Zosimus was an infallible leader of the Christian Church. If he and the bishops of North Africa had, they would never have acted as they did.
M
mikeledes
Guest
So what is the point you’re trying to prove in this thread? Catholics can say that they have the assurance of faith that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and that the Church infallibly discerned the limits of the Canon and that the Holy Spirit continues to infallibly guide us to all truth. It seems like you are just splitting hairs. If you believe something, you are certain that it is true and right.
God Bless,
Michael
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
All this time and we finally get to the point. Remember I started this thread primarily because you kept bringing up the fact that I didn’t know without an infallible church if I had all the correct books of the canon. So I went through this to demonstrate that I have just as much assurance as you do about the books of canon. You are in no better position than I am, and in fact if you think you have infallible knowledge of this you are in a worse position, because you are using fallacious reasoning. In the end, we both put faith in something based on our fallible reasoning. Your faith leads you to trust what you think is an infallible church to make sure the canon is right. My faith leads me to trust in an infallible God who revealed Himself and therefore would make sure His fallible people got it right. It doesn’t take infallibility to be 100% correct. Hey, I’m living proof of that
S
Subrosa
Guest
Hi Sola -All this time and we finally get to the point. Remember I started this thread primarily because you kept bringing up the fact that I didn’t know without an infallible church if I had all the correct books of the canon. So I went through this to demonstrate that I have just as much assurance as you do about the books of canon. You are in no better position than I am, and in fact if you think you have infallible knowledge of this you are in a worse position, because you are using fallacious reasoning. In the end, we both put faith in something based on our fallible reasoning. Your faith leads you to trust what you think is an infallible church to make sure the canon is right. My faith leads me to trust in an infallible God who revealed Himself and therefore would make sure His fallible people got it right. It doesn’t take infallibility to be 100% correct. Hey, I’m living proof of that
So far you have generalized you statements about all Catholics. You are wrong to do so. Many just do not understand the faith and it’s theological structure.
Please read and respond to my posts #63, #64 and #69 on this thread.
A much clearer understanding of the doctrine of infallability is needed, it seems by all.
Subrosa
M
mikeledes
Guest
Can you be more specific on the Arian Pope? Documentation?
Regarding Zosimus, I’ll have to look into that more thoroughly in order to give you an adequate response. But just a clarification. Being misled into thinking someone is orthodox is not the same thing as personally endorsing a heresy, being a heretic, and teaching heresy. I can mistakenly think that a Oneness Penetecostal is Trinitarian if I just do a very superficial analysis. But a more thoruough investigation will prove otherwise.
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
In other words, you have an assurance of faith that God would ensure that the Church would infallibly/inerrantly discern the canon. You are still placing your trust on a decision made by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We have the assurance of faith that God would ensure the correct canon and the correct interpretation of His Word. He would not allow His Church to fall en masse into heresy, hence infallibility.All this time and we finally get to the point. Remember I started this thread primarily because you kept bringing up the fact that I didn’t know without an infallible church if I had all the correct books of the canon. So I went through this to demonstrate that I have just as much assurance as you do about the books of canon. You are in no better position than I am, and in fact if you think you have infallible knowledge of this you are in a worse position, because you are using fallacious reasoning. In the end, we both put faith in something based on our fallible reasoning. Your faith leads you to trust what you think is an infallible church to make sure the canon is right. My faith leads me to trust in an infallible God who revealed Himself and therefore would make sure His fallible people got it right. It doesn’t take infallibility to be 100% correct. Hey, I’m living proof of that
God Bless,
Michael
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Some controversialists claim a need for an infallible interpreter for an infallible Bible therefore requires an infallible student. This shows a serious misunderstanding of the concept of infallibility. The human mind is designed to be able to discern the truth and it usually does. It is not necessary for it to be infallible to do so. The method of trial and error is sufficient. Unfortunately, there are limits to the ability of the human mind to learn the truth. In particular, the mind is strongly influenced by prejudices and presuppositions that may make some conclusions unacceptable. It is also possible to draw incorrect conclusions from fallacious use of the reasoning faculty. One may also draw improper conclusions from partial data. Furthermore, the mind may have problems comprehending those matters the content of which is beyond our immediate experience. Nevertheless, with proper guidance, preparation, and a good source of correct comprehensive information, the human mind is capable of coming to true knowledge without needing to be formally infallible itself.
Infallibility is not a guarantee that one will arrive at the full truth. Instead, it is a guarantee that the individual so endowed will not make any errors in what he says. Students learn from their mistakes. While it would be nice if they got everything right all the time, it is not necessary for them to do so in order to learn the truth. An infallible teacher merely guarantees that the student will not be presented with any erroneous information. The student can then use his intellectual powers to learn correctly what he has been taught. He may make mistakes, but with recourse to an infallible teacher and his natural intelligence, the average person can sort this out to arrive at true knowledge.
We must also draw a distinction between the different types of infallibility. The Bible is a static product. It is a text, not an authority. It cannot interpret itself. It is infallible in content but only when interpreted correctly. It cannot stand on its own. As the old saying goes, “A text without a context is a pretext.” Biblical infallibility is therefore contextual and not self-evident. As such the Bible is only materially infallible.
The Magisterium. on the other hand, is not a static text but a living authority under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit. It is dynamic and self-aware. It can respond to questions and because of the special privilege granted to it by God, it cannot err. God is the one who is both the formal and efficient cause of infallibility. This means that when the Magisterium operates in the proper context with the proper power acting on it (i.e., under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit) its statements are always infallible. The Magisterium is therefore the instrumental cause of infallible teaching.
Material infallibility is not sufficient to finally guarantee infallible teaching. You need to apply the proper context (formal cause: the plan of God) with the proper power (efficient cause: superintendence of the Holy Spirit) applied by the proper authority (the instrumental cause: the Magisterium) to obtain the desired end (final cause: true teaching). Once you have that, then the human mind can use its proper powers of discernment to learn the truth.
Some Protestant controversialists claim that the decision of the Catholic to believe in an infallible Magisterium is the equivalent of the individual claiming infallibility for himself. This is not true. If you go to the doctor and he tells you what must be done for your ailment, when you submit to his treatment, you are not declaring your own medical competence. You are recognizing his authority in medical matters and trusting in his judgment. In submitting to the Magisterium, we are deferring to the will of God as he has revealed it to his Church. We are not asserting our infallibility, but rather our faith in God’s promises.
When the Protestant reads his Bible and decides for himself what to believe, he is the one who is asserting his own infallibility because he is not submitting to any authority other than his own interpretation. If some Protestant group wishes to defer authority to its ministers or its confessional statements, it is asserting the infallibility of its ministers or founders over and against that of the historic Church. They often allege that they merely are asserting the infallibility of the Bible, but then we have the problem of settling disputes over discordant interpretations. It is the interpretation whose correctness is being questioned, not the correctness of the text it was based upon. As such, it must be the interpreter who needs to be infallible not the source which he interprets. As we noted in the previous section on perspicuity, it is not always possible to completely understand the biblical text even by the experts. Ultimately, the Protestant system is unworkable.
Quoted from Dr. Art Sippo
Infallibility is not a guarantee that one will arrive at the full truth. Instead, it is a guarantee that the individual so endowed will not make any errors in what he says. Students learn from their mistakes. While it would be nice if they got everything right all the time, it is not necessary for them to do so in order to learn the truth. An infallible teacher merely guarantees that the student will not be presented with any erroneous information. The student can then use his intellectual powers to learn correctly what he has been taught. He may make mistakes, but with recourse to an infallible teacher and his natural intelligence, the average person can sort this out to arrive at true knowledge.
We must also draw a distinction between the different types of infallibility. The Bible is a static product. It is a text, not an authority. It cannot interpret itself. It is infallible in content but only when interpreted correctly. It cannot stand on its own. As the old saying goes, “A text without a context is a pretext.” Biblical infallibility is therefore contextual and not self-evident. As such the Bible is only materially infallible.
The Magisterium. on the other hand, is not a static text but a living authority under the direct superintendence of the Holy Spirit. It is dynamic and self-aware. It can respond to questions and because of the special privilege granted to it by God, it cannot err. God is the one who is both the formal and efficient cause of infallibility. This means that when the Magisterium operates in the proper context with the proper power acting on it (i.e., under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit) its statements are always infallible. The Magisterium is therefore the instrumental cause of infallible teaching.
Material infallibility is not sufficient to finally guarantee infallible teaching. You need to apply the proper context (formal cause: the plan of God) with the proper power (efficient cause: superintendence of the Holy Spirit) applied by the proper authority (the instrumental cause: the Magisterium) to obtain the desired end (final cause: true teaching). Once you have that, then the human mind can use its proper powers of discernment to learn the truth.
Some Protestant controversialists claim that the decision of the Catholic to believe in an infallible Magisterium is the equivalent of the individual claiming infallibility for himself. This is not true. If you go to the doctor and he tells you what must be done for your ailment, when you submit to his treatment, you are not declaring your own medical competence. You are recognizing his authority in medical matters and trusting in his judgment. In submitting to the Magisterium, we are deferring to the will of God as he has revealed it to his Church. We are not asserting our infallibility, but rather our faith in God’s promises.
When the Protestant reads his Bible and decides for himself what to believe, he is the one who is asserting his own infallibility because he is not submitting to any authority other than his own interpretation. If some Protestant group wishes to defer authority to its ministers or its confessional statements, it is asserting the infallibility of its ministers or founders over and against that of the historic Church. They often allege that they merely are asserting the infallibility of the Bible, but then we have the problem of settling disputes over discordant interpretations. It is the interpretation whose correctness is being questioned, not the correctness of the text it was based upon. As such, it must be the interpreter who needs to be infallible not the source which he interprets. As we noted in the previous section on perspicuity, it is not always possible to completely understand the biblical text even by the experts. Ultimately, the Protestant system is unworkable.
Quoted from Dr. Art Sippo
S
Subrosa
Guest
Thank you, Randy. This is just the point I was going to.
Subrosa
M
mikeledes
Guest
Kaycee, here is a response found in newadvent.org to your challenge on Zozimus and the Pelagians:
bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm
God Bless,
Michael
And here is a more thorough article on the topic:
bringyou.to/apologetics/num17.htm
God Bless,
Michael
M
mikeledes
Guest
The infallible knowledge vs. assurance of faith argument is just an example of splitting hairs. While theoretically they may be different, functionally they are indistinguishable. Sola, as a Christian, I would expect that if they asked you to renounce Christ or die, you would chose death. The fact that you would chose to die for Christ is clear evidence that Christ is as real to you as the computer you’re using. If you doubted his existence (i.e. What if He doesn’t exist? Is it worth dying?), you would not have the courage to chose death.
As Catholics, we believe God infallibly guides His Church to all truth. One of the most self-evident examples of that is the Canon. The fact that you have the assurance of faith that the Canon you possess is the correct one is a tacit admission of the fact that you believe that the Church, infallibly discerned the Canon. You may want to change words around, but the meaning is the same. You may say that we do not have infallible knowledge of this, but, according to you, we do not have infallible knowledge that Bible is the Word of God either.
Whether we as individuals possess infallible knowledge or the assurance of faith is really besides the point. No one here doubts that God exists, that the Bible is the Word of God, that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins and was resurrected, and that the Epistle of Jude is inspired. So theoretically we may have only the assurance of faith, but functionally we act as if we were infallibly certain. So I have the assurance of faith that God not only infallibly guided the Church on the Canon, but he also infallibly guides His Church in the interprertation of His Word. If God was not involved in the discernment of the canon, then we have no certainty.
God Bless,
Michael
As Catholics, we believe God infallibly guides His Church to all truth. One of the most self-evident examples of that is the Canon. The fact that you have the assurance of faith that the Canon you possess is the correct one is a tacit admission of the fact that you believe that the Church, infallibly discerned the Canon. You may want to change words around, but the meaning is the same. You may say that we do not have infallible knowledge of this, but, according to you, we do not have infallible knowledge that Bible is the Word of God either.
Whether we as individuals possess infallible knowledge or the assurance of faith is really besides the point. No one here doubts that God exists, that the Bible is the Word of God, that Jesus died on the Cross for our sins and was resurrected, and that the Epistle of Jude is inspired. So theoretically we may have only the assurance of faith, but functionally we act as if we were infallibly certain. So I have the assurance of faith that God not only infallibly guided the Church on the Canon, but he also infallibly guides His Church in the interprertation of His Word. If God was not involved in the discernment of the canon, then we have no certainty.
God Bless,
Michael
R
rtconstant
Guest
So…
If your assertion is correct Sola what we are left with is this:
Protestants base their faith on their personal feelings.
Catholics base their faith on personal feelings within some level of historical context.
Well I guess you can make that case. I’m just baffled as to why you would want to. It still doesn’t improve or even equalize the protestant position. It just means that Protestants have fewer reasons to justify having faith to begin with. If that’s your victory you are welcome to it.
Welcome to Christianity the only religion where we suicide bomb ourselves…
If your assertion is correct Sola what we are left with is this:
Protestants base their faith on their personal feelings.
Catholics base their faith on personal feelings within some level of historical context.
Well I guess you can make that case. I’m just baffled as to why you would want to. It still doesn’t improve or even equalize the protestant position. It just means that Protestants have fewer reasons to justify having faith to begin with. If that’s your victory you are welcome to it.
Welcome to Christianity the only religion where we suicide bomb ourselves…
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Look at Mikeledes’ post, #116. It seems he has more actual details about the whole matter than I, and his details do indeed affirm that there is some sense of mistaken anti-papal bias in the version of the story that you’ve presented.
S
SolaScriptura
Guest
Inerrant is the correct word, not infallibly.
My trust is ultimately in God guiding the church. I don’t have a problem with that.
I don’t believe God would allow his church to fall en masse into heresy either. I just don’t see any evidence from Scripture or early church history that any one thought infallibility was necessary for this to take place.
However, are you saying we are both in the same boat with assurance of our faith? If so, you have conceded everything I have argued.
*]The Catholic is in no better position than the Protestant in reference to the canon. Both believe the canon is correct based on faith.
*]If a Catholic claims they have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon, then they are in a worse position, because this argument is fallacious.
Also remember I started this thread because of you. The whole time we were talking about sola Scriptura you wanted to talk about the canon. However, I noticed you were not extremely active on this thread especially since that is all you wanted to talk about when it wasn’t the topic.
- Status