I was posting quickly and was probably not clear with my words. Here’s how I understand it (and please correct me if I’m wrong). The doctrine of infallibility is related to apostolic succession, but is not the sum total of apostolic succession. Apostolic Succession covers everything which stems from there being an unbroken chain leading to the apostles (I’m avoiding a full discussion of the laying on of hands for brevity). This is why Churches in schism can have valid sacraments because they have Apostolic Succession. Infallibility is reserved to the Pope, and the communion of bishops when speaking in concert with the Pope (counsel declarations for example). The reasoning for the Pope’s infallibility is because of the unbroken chain on Peter’s chair. Does that clear it up and am I correct?
While I want to quickly say yes, I honestly have to do some checking on the details before I can.
I do not intend to show contempt or disrespect for the Catholic faith, but let me explain why I see a problem with this statement. The Magisterium has declared the doctrine of infallibility on matters of faith and morals only. If that doctrine is, itself, a matter of faith. Then this basically means the Magisterium said “we’re infallible because we say we’re infallible”. To me, this equates to placing your faith in an institution.
Why do we believe the Bible is inerrant? You may not agree that both (Magesterium/Tradition and Bible) are sources of revelation, but don’t we both apply faith to the principle of believing that either are without error?
I would disagree with this. I think that a secular source would be perfectly valid unless it can be shown to be incorrect. If we only accept official Catholic reports of history for validating historical claims made by the Catholic Church we run into the same thing as above where the Magisterium is infallible because the Magisterium says they are infallible.
Let’s put it this way. Jesus existed 2000 years ago. Is that a historical claim? Yes. Is that a matter of faith? Yes. But I think I may be confused still. While apostolic succession is both matter of history and of faith (as is Jesus), are you asking can we rely on acceptable historical documents to prove the line of Popes? I hope someone else can answer this, I’m not sure. And are any of these historical documents also considered official doctrine? I dont’ know that for sure either. So hopefully someone else will jump in here.
But it’s the same with Jesus. You take the Bible (as it’s compilation is a matter of Tradition in and of itself) as being correct as a matter of faith and history when it comes to Jesus (so do we, along with the Church). You would use sources outside of the Bible that mention Jesus to support your claim of His existence. We take apostolic succession to be correct as a matter of history and faith. The total assurance comes from the Church’s authority over revelation (both Bible and Tradition) and historical claims can support it.
Sorry for my sloppy words. Would it be fair to say that it is in accordance with Catholic teachings that all Catholics seek the conversion of all to the Catholic Church? (Noting that only the Holy Spirit can convert and the people are simply His messengers and tools.)
Yes, just as any Christian is called to seek the conversion of anyone to Christ, it’s just taking it a step further. But something like this forum would only be a minute example of “seeking the conversion” of others. It would also be living an exemplary life. You can evangelize without ever talking to someone. You can evangelize by loving someone. By doing things for them and sacrificing for them, by praying for them. It doesn’t have to about discussing apologetics. Would the ultimate goal be that everyone become Catholic? Sure, that would be awesome! But Catholics have a lot of work to do on themselves. So while evangelization is something we’re all called to in one way or another, it is not the defining duty of being a Catholic. Is that what you’re asking?
I can see that rational, it even makes sense.
Good, that’s what I wanted to get across.
Here is what I’m getting at. The Bible talks about tradition and the Bible talks about Scripture. However, it references Scripture as God Breathed.
But where does it say that Tradition, when the apostles are saying “follow what I write AND what I say, AND what has been passed down to you, etc. etc.” as not God breathed? If everything in Scripture is considered God-breathed wouldn’t it follow that the above passages are Godbreathed? And since it doesn’t say that they are not, where is the problem? That’s my point. The Bible does not contradict (and in my opinion it totally supports) Tradition. It does not say “Scripture is Godbreathed and nothing else is.”
This elevates Scripture to a level far and away beyond anything else.
The Bible calling Scripture Godbreathed elevates it over the Church which the Bible calls the pillar and foundation of truth? It doesn’t call Scripture the Pillar and foundation of truth. So in order for those two not to contradict eachother, they must both be pretty important.
