J
Just_Lurking
Guest
It seems to me that God does this quite a bit. After all, we have the Bible, all of which is inerrant except for the table of contents.
- Status
V
VociMike
Guest
We know much, much more clearly what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the faith then we know what Protestantism teaches regarding the faith. Considering the glaring lack of any unified body of teaching among “bible-believing” follower of Christ, to criticize the Catholic Church on this matter is highly disingenuous. It is very much a matter of logs vs. specks.
If you disagree, tell me the “essentials” that every “bible-believing” follower of Christ accepts.
D
davidv
Guest
The problem with this “problem” as you portray it, is that is not a problem. The Church is built upon the person of Jesus, not a list of infallibible statements. He is “the way, and the truth, and the life”. We are to follow Him. Every Church doctrine is intented to guide us on this Way. It matters not how certain they are.
E
expectthebest
Guest
I’m not arguing from protestant prospective. I’m arguing from a Catholic prospective so I can’t answer your question.
By the way, to say “ours is better than yours” in an attempt to justify this apparent lack of clarity is not a valid argument. I don’t care what the protestants think on this one. I’m looking at this as a Catholic.
E
expectthebest
Guest
Of course it matters! If it didn’t matter, there would be no difference between fallible teachings and infallible teachings. For example, the non-infallible teaching of capitol punishment is wrong can be respectfully disagreed with among faithful Catholics where the Assumption of Mary cannot. To me, this is a huge difference.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Expextthebest,
Code:
let's say you ask for a proposition P0 stating:Let’s say you get it.
Now, is proposition P0 de fide ? It does not state and cannot state that by itself.
Now, let’s say you ask then for a proposition P(-1) stating:
Proposition P0 is de fide
…
I’d like you to comment on this.
E
expectthebest
Guest
This is an invalid argument. By this argument, the Church could not state that anything is infallible because the statement itself would then have to be defined as infallible.Dear Expextthebest,
Propositions P1, P2, …PN are de fide.Code:let's say you ask for a proposition P0 stating:
Let’s say you get it.
Now, is proposition P0 de fide ? It does not state and cannot state that by itself.
Now, let’s say you ask then for a proposition P(-1) stating:
Proposition P0 is de fide
…
I’d like you to comment on this.
Infallibility is the basis for our entire Faith in what the Church teaches. If the Church does not have infallibility, we are free to believe what we want. If we are free to believe what we want, there is no need for Church teaching. Therefore, the ability to define what is infallible and what is not is critical to the very authority of the Church.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Expectthebest, this is from “This Rock”, february 2001, by Greg Krehbiel.
The problem is that there has to be a break in the chain somewhere. God is infallible; we are not. If we diagram the progression from God’s infallible self-revelation to our fallible perception of that revelation—for simplicity’s sake let’s just say the steps are A then B then C then D—the “infallible” part has to get lost somewhere. It starts off infallible in God’s mind and ends up a muddled mess in mine. It really doesn’t matter where you put the transition; the logical problem is the same. We can ask, “What good is an infallible A without an infallible B” just as well as we can ask, “What good is an infallible C without an infallible D?” It’s simply the wrong question.
The Protestant confesses that Scripture is infallible but that the Church that tells us which books belong in Scripture is not. The Catholic confesses that the Magisterium is infallible, but the ministers who teach us what the Magisterium says are not. Both have to move from an infallible something to a fallible something, so the Catholic apologist has to guard against unleashing an attack dog that bites his own leg.
Bad habit: Tossing around infallibility as if it solves everything.
Remedy: Focus on the need for an authoritative Church. Once that is established, then work on infallibility.*
Let’s try not to mix three different matters here: the list, the infallibility of the Church, the authority of the Church.
Please, do no jump from “no list” to “no infallibility” or from “no infallibility” to “no authority”.
For the latter, every parent is not asked to be infallible in order to have an authority on his children.
For the former: my argument is not against infallibility, just against the quick fix of what has ever been taught as de fide.
( on a side note, we could not say a shot, or a statement, is infallible, we can say it comes from an infallible sniper ) .
On the contrary, mine goes against the common argument: “the Church is not infallible because she cannot even produce the list, and therefore she is in a mess.”
My argument is simply that “the list” you seem asking for, pastoral considerations on its expediency aside, and anything else aside, meets IMHO with intrinsic logical problems. Therefore I guess that the Church is not in a mess for not doing what she, or anybody, could not logically do.
Or shall we jump and jump from here to “no need for Church teaching” ?
E
expectthebest
Guest
I’m sorry but the fact remains that the Church basis it’s authority to teach on the infallible dogmas it proclaims. Without one, you cannot have the other. One cannot say that the Church is infallible but it just can’t tell you what it’s infallible on. So, just to make sure, believe everything it says. We have been warned to look out for wolves in sheeps clothing. If the Church can’t even tell us what is infallible and what is not, how are we to watch out for the wolf?Dear Expectthebest, this is from “This Rock”, february 2001, by Greg Krehbiel.
The problem is that there has to be a break in the chain somewhere. God is infallible; we are not. If we diagram the progression from God’s infallible self-revelation to our fallible perception of that revelation—for simplicity’s sake let’s just say the steps are A then B then C then D—the “infallible” part has to get lost somewhere. It starts off infallible in God’s mind and ends up a muddled mess in mine. It really doesn’t matter where you put the transition; the logical problem is the same. We can ask, “What good is an infallible A without an infallible B” just as well as we can ask, “What good is an infallible C without an infallible D?” It’s simply the wrong question.
The Protestant confesses that Scripture is infallible but that the Church that tells us which books belong in Scripture is not. The Catholic confesses that the Magisterium is infallible, but the ministers who teach us what the Magisterium says are not. Both have to move from an infallible something to a fallible something, so the Catholic apologist has to guard against unleashing an attack dog that bites his own leg.
Bad habit: Tossing around infallibility as if it solves everything.
Remedy: Focus on the need for an authoritative Church. Once that is established, then work on infallibility.*
Let’s try not to mix three different matters here: the list, the infallibility of the Church, the authority of the Church.
Please, do no jump from “no list” to “no infallibility” or from “no infallibility” to “no authority”.
For the latter, every parent is not asked to be infallible in order to have an authority on his children.
For the former: my argument is not against infallibility, just against the quick fix of what has ever been taught as de fide.
( on a side note, we could not say a shot, or a statement, is infallible, we can say it comes from an infallible sniper ) .
On the contrary, mine goes against the common argument: “the Church is not infallible because she cannot even produce the list, and therefore she is in a mess.”
My argument is simply that “the list” you seem asking for, pastoral considerations on its expediency aside, and anything else aside, meets IMHO with intrinsic logical problems. Therefore I guess that the Church is not in a mess for not doing what she, or anybody, could not logically do.
Or shall we jump and jump from here to “no need for Church teaching” ?
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Expectthebest,
Code:
- the authority of the Church ( and her indefectibility, of which infallibility is a manifestation) is based on being sent by Jesus .
- the field within which infallibility can be exercised is declared by the Church
- we have the Catechism. There you find the exposition of what the Church believes. If you want to look out for wolves, be careful about those who clearly and in full awareness preach contrary to what is taught in the Catechism ( whether de fide or not) while pretending they are faithful children of the Church :)
E
expectthebest
Guest
The Church recongnizes that it can only be free of error when it speaks infallibly. When it does not speak infallibly, even if it’s in the Cathechism, it can have error. Therefore, we must be on the lookout for that error. Without a list, nobody can know what is possible for error and what is not. Without infallibility of the Church, everthing else falls. Therefore, to say on the other hand that it doesn’t really matter makes no logical sense.
J
Joysong
Guest
In 2000 years, the Church has only spoken “ex cathedra” (infallibly) twice! You are demanding that every statement, in order to be believed by you, must contain the ex cathedra notation. In other words, you have no faith in Jesus’s promise, and question the reliability of 2000 years of church teaching.
My friend, you are not a Catholic in spirit, but a doubting Thomas, for whom NO argument will suffice.
You may want to pray, Lord, increase my faith!
D
davidv
Guest
E
expectthebest
Guest
No, I believe the Pope has spoken infallibly twice. The Church Magisterium has spoken infallibly many times.
Jesus said he would not leave his Church. Why is the Church then so afraid to tell us what is infallible and which is not? God will not allow the Church to say something is inallible unless it is without error. If the Church is very afraid of this, it must be afaid of it’s own fallibility. Right?
E
expectthebest
Guest
I guess the definition of rejection is really the point here. The Church does not say that absolutely everything it ever mutters must be assented to. At least that’s my understanding. Only certain things must be assented to and even then a Catholic may respectfully disagree after a good examination of concience about the issue at hand. One example would be the death penalty. The Church says there is no time when this should happen. Catholics are, however, free to believe otherwise (especially since the Church has only very recently been against the death penalty and has been responsable for many of deaths in the past).
So again, if we don’t know what may and may not be in error, how do we watch out for the wolves?
D
davidv
Guest
Watching out for wolves is not our job. That is the Shepherds’ role. Our “job” is to follow Christ, with the help of the instructions from the Church. We don’t have to assent to anything to be obedient.
E
expectthebest
Guest
So, we are to blindly follow? I thought the “wolves” statement in Scripture was meant for all the Faithful, not just for the Church.
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear expectthebest,
Code:
- I maintain the list as you mean it is not possible
- its absence does not mean absence of infallibility- the formal teachings outside the theoretical “list”,
would anyway be the most reliable you could ever find, not a field of errors.
Moreover:
- if you did get the list, would you be infallibly sure you could understand everything there infallibly ?
E
expectthebest
Guest
So what you are saying is that the infallibility of the Church, the basis for believing in it’s teachings rather than some other teachings, can’t be defined.Dear expectthebest,
in the ChurchCode:- I maintain the list as you mean it is not possible - its absence does not mean absence of infallibility
- the formal teachings outside the theoretical “list”,
would anyway be the most reliable you could ever find, not a field of errors.
Moreover:
- if you did get the list, would you be infallibly sure you could understand everything there infallibly ?
T
thistle
Guest
All the teachings (doctrines and disciplines) of the Catholic Church are summarised in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and these must be accepted by ALL Catholics.
- Status