So what would happen if the Pope changed dogma?

[Gorgias]

But how do we know that the canon is infallible?

Because it was infallibly declared! (At the very least, at Trent.) An assertion of a “fallibly-declared canon” is an assertion of a magisterium incapable of infallibility.

Based on this thread, it seems the best that Catholics could hope for is a “fallible list of infallible doctrines.”

Hmm… how so? That doesn’t seem to follow…

Next thing I know you’ll be telling us that the pope can sin.

Oh, that much was obvious the minute his favorite soccer team was made known…

 

[Tomdstone]

Because it was infallibly declared!

It is not that easy to know what teachings have been infallibly declared. For example, has Purgatory been infallibly declared? Has it been infallibly declared that if you eat an extremely tiny portion of meat on a day of abstinence, that would be grave matter, or does it have to be at least a portion of a certain size? Some reputable Vatican theologians say that the restriction against women priests must be obeyed, but that the declaration of JPII does not meet all of the necessary conditions of infallibility.

 

[Gorgias]

It is not that easy to know what teachings have been infallibly declared.

Says you.

For example, has Purgatory been infallibly declared?

Yes. Remember how I suggested you read the catechism? Here’s the footnote to CCC #1031 (which declares that “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect”): “Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547) :1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336) : DS 1000.”

Has it been infallibly declared that if you eat an extremely tiny portion of meat on a day of abstinence, that would be grave matter, or does it have to be at least a portion of a certain size?

Abstinence is a ‘discipline’, not doctrine or dogma. Disobeying the laws of the Church, however, is a grave matter.

Some reputable Vatican theologians say that the restriction against women priests must be obeyed, but that the declaration of JPII does not meet all of the necessary conditions of infallibility.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is this a question of how to define an infallible declaration, or a question of whether some people can dispute whether the conditions have been met?

 

[Gorgias]

Inerrant means without error, is that correct?

“Incapable of error”, as the definition goes, as I recall.

I think that there are a few errors in the Bible, although in many cases if you interpret what was said as a story, to be understood figuratively as a parable story, in that way, you can get around many of these errors.

In other words, if your interpretation of “errors in the Bible” is incorrect, then the Bible isn’t in error. It’s not a question of “get[ting] around many errors”, but of recognizing that there aren’t errors to “get around.”

 

[wynd]

Yes. Remember how I suggested you read the catechism? Here’s the footnote to CCC #1031 (which declares that “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect”): “Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547) :1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336) : DS 1000.”

I admit that I have not cracked open my copy of the Catechism to look at this citation and its context (I’ve recently moved and it’s still packed away in a box). Is this an infallible teaching or just an authoritative teaching?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is this a question of how to define an infallible declaration, or a question of whether some people can dispute whether the conditions have been met?

Maybe both? If we can’t know what’s infallible, how do we know if this particular declaration meets that criteria?

 

[Gorgias]

I admit that I have not cracked open my copy of the Catechism to look at this citation and its context (I’ve recently moved and it’s still packed away in a box). Is this an infallible teaching or just an authoritative teaching?

The conciliar teachings would be considered ‘infallible’ (notwithstanding that the formal definition of infallibility was declared at 1st Vatican).

Maybe both? If we can’t know what’s infallible, how do we know if this particular declaration meets that criteria?

A particular claim keeps on being floated here, without substantiation: that is, that “we can’t know what’s infallible.” How might we make the claim that we can’t know? We do know. It was declared at 1st Vatican, and then later expounded in Lumen Gentium!

 

[Tomdstone]

The conciliar teachings would be considered ‘infallible’ (notwithstanding that the formal definition of infallibility was declared at 1st Vatican).

A particular claim keeps on being floated here, without substantiation: that is, that “we can’t know what’s infallible.” How might we make the claim that we can’t know? We do know. It was declared at 1st Vatican, and then later expounded in Lumen Gentium!

Is the declaration against women priests infallible?

 

[Gorgias]

Is the declaration against women priests infallible?

There are those – outside the magisterium – who like to assert that it isn’t infallible. That doesn’t make it so.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are those – outside the magisterium – who like to assert that it isn’t infallible. That doesn’t make it so.

So to make it clear, then, are you saying that the declaration of JPII against women priests is recognized by all officially approved Roman Catholic theologians as being an infallible declaration?

 

[wynd]

A particular claim keeps on being floated here, without substantiation: that is, that “we can’t know what’s infallible.” How might we make the claim that we can’t know? We do know. It was declared at 1st Vatican, and then later expounded in Lumen Gentium!

If this claim is false and we CAN know what is infallible, we should be able to easily disprove it by producing a list of infallible dogmas.

 

[Tomdstone]

For a Catholic, there’s no such problem: the Bible is a infallibly-declared list of infallible books.

(OK: actually, it’s “inerrant books” – Scripture is inerrant, not infallible.

Actually, there are errors of different kinds in the Bible. So it is not inerrant.
Leviticus 11: 20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you. 21 There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. 23 But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean."
The error is that all insects have six legs, not four.
Leviticus 11: “13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.”
The error is that the bat is not a bird, it is a mammal.

 

[Gorgias]

So to make it clear, then, are you saying that the declaration of JPII against women priests is recognized by all officially approved Roman Catholic theologians as being an infallible declaration?

The arbiters of infallible declarations are not “all officially approved Roman Catholic theologians” (whatever that means – there’s a ‘college of bishops’, but not a ‘college of theologians’ ).

This would be like saying that the winner of the Super Bowl must be affirmed by all U.S. sports writers, and if some kook said “the Broncos did not win Super Bowl XLVIII”, then we would have to conclude that this lack of consensus implied that there was not a winner of the game. That’s just ludicrous.

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, there are errors of different kinds in the Bible. So it is not inerrant.

Leviticus 11: 20 The error is that all insects have six legs, not four.
Leviticus 11: "13 The error is that the bat is not a bird, it is a mammal.

Wow… that’s the best you’ve got? That bugs have six legs? That the Bible isn’t a science book?

You could’ve saved the trouble looking those up and just asked whether ‘inerrancy’ means that the Bible is a science text. It isn’t. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that it is. Heck, back in the 4th century, even St Augustine pointed out this fact!

What does ‘inerrancy’ mean, then, when the Church states the Bible is inerrant? The Vatican II document Dei Verbum is quoted in the catechism at paragraph 107: “The inspired books teach the truth. ‘Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.’”

The claim here, then, is that among that “which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see [in] … Scripture”, the answers to the questions “how many legs do insects have?” or “are bats birds or mammals” aren’t included. My salvation doesn’t depend on either of these pieces of info…

 

[Gorgias]

If this claim is false and we CAN know what is infallible, we should be able to easily disprove it by producing a list of infallible dogmas.

So, go get a copy of Denzinger or Ott, or look at the catechism.

 

[Tomdstone]

The arbiters of infallible declarations are not “all officially approved Roman Catholic theologians” (whatever that means – there’s a ‘college of bishops’, but not a ‘college of theologians’ ).

This would be like saying that the winner of the Super Bowl must be affirmed by all U.S. sports writers, and if some kook said “the Broncos did not win Super Bowl XLVIII”, then we would have to conclude that this lack of consensus implied that there was not a winner of the game. That’s just ludicrous.

So to make it clear then, not all officially approved Roman Catholic theologians will agree on what is and what is not infallible?

 

[Tomdstone]

Wow… that’s the best you’ve got? That bugs have six legs? That the Bible isn’t a science book?

You could’ve saved the trouble looking those up and just asked whether ‘inerrancy’ means that the Bible is a science text. It isn’t. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that it is. Heck, back in the 4th century, even St Augustine pointed out this fact!

What does ‘inerrancy’ mean, then, when the Church states the Bible is inerrant? The Vatican II document Dei Verbum is quoted in the catechism at paragraph 107: “The inspired books teach the truth. ‘Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.’”

The claim here, then, is that among that “which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see [in] … Scripture”, the answers to the questions “how many legs do insects have?” or “are bats birds or mammals” aren’t included. My salvation doesn’t depend on either of these pieces of info…

So you do agree that the Bible is in error on these two points?

 

[Tomdstone]

Wow… that’s the best you’ve got?

Actually, no. I did find a few more errors in the Bible. I guess you want a non-scientific example. Take then for example, the passage in the Bibles which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is not true, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

 

[Gorgias]

So you do agree that the Bible is in error on these two points?

I would agree that the human author(s) of these passages had a different understanding of biology than we do today. If this is your ‘gotcha’ moment, in which you conclude, “aha! so that Bible isn’t inerrant, after all!”, then let me remind you: the Bible isn’t a science book, and isn’t trying to be one. That’s not what the Church means when it discusses Scriptural inerrancy…

 

[Gorgias]

Take then for example, the passage in the Bibles which says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is not true, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
John 15:26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

What part of “I will send”… “from the Father” doesn’t look like “from the Father and the Son”?

In any case, I would argue that this passage speaks to the Spirit coming forth in his mission as ‘Advocate’, and is not a theological description of the eternal procession of the Spirit as part of the ontological Trinity.

 

[Tomdstone]

What part of “I will send”… “from the Father” doesn’t look like “from the Father and the Son”?

In any case, I would argue that this passage speaks to the Spirit coming forth in his mission as ‘Advocate’, and is not a theological description of the eternal procession of the Spirit as part of the ontological Trinity.

The Bible says, the Spirit of the truth, who proceeds from the Father. Do you say that this is correct and as a consequence the filioque clause is not indicated here.