T
Traverse
Guest
How can I trust the catholic claim of infallibility?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Traverse
Guest
Isn’t that enough?What different conclusions do you mean? The only one I can think of is papal supremacy vs “first among equals”.
Is there some other doctrinal difference you think the Orthodox tradition proclaims?
But also isn’t there canon of the bible different?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Please show me. I’ve never seen such a thing. I’ve seen things like "according to tradition, this happened in history, but since I can’t trust your sacred tradition I can’t trust statements like that. At least not yet.
It does indeed! I don’t see your point though. Are you suggesting that because the bible wasn’t around yet, yet they could discern who is genuine, that therefore the bible alone is not needed? It is a worthy argument, but it only works if you can prove to me that the gifts of the holy spirit in the first century were not temporary. The bible even claims they are to be temporary and truthfully I haven’t seen them occur in this modern age. If they are still present it should be easy to walk into a catholic church and see this happen on a regular basis, because, after all, it happened on a regular basis in the first century as evidence for non believers.
Traverse,
What book do you retrieve to plan a Thanksgiving day meal. Do you recall many of those events? Our are mind less feeble when recalling in each generation what Christ taught the apostles concerning the Eucharist and the last supper. It too was a family meal and all are welcome.
That may very well be true. Certainly there is more and more I’ve learned about the catholic faith that were easily perceived wrongly on my part for a long time. But this isn’t the topic for going over each and every thing that I currently perceive as error.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
You cant trust in the sense that “Oh I see it now”. Why? Because everything you have faith in is from the Church.How can I trust the catholic claim of infallibility?
For an example, you cannot ask the Church to prove its infallibility from Scripture. Why? Because the Church explaining it from Scripture is not conclusive proof because the Church is the one who put the Scripture together in the first place. One could say they “rigged” it in to supporting them.
So your assent to the Church must be due to some other practical reason and apriori to accepting all these claims you believe by Faith (including infallibility).
This is why I introduced to you the idea of grounding yourself first in the historical fact of Christ’s resurrection and then subsequently recognizing the authority of Apostles and their Successors using the very natural and practical notion we have of teachers passing their authority on to students they certify.
In this sense, you listen to everything taught by the apostolic successors today because it is your only bet to learn about Christ who rose from the dead and his teachings. In the process of doing so by faith, Infallibility just happens to be one of the doctrines they have defined. So you accept it as you accept everything else.
The Bible as being the word of God is also such a claim you and many others accept by faith but surprisingly none of them want to ask “why should I trust that claim?”. Perhaps because asking that makes one realize that then they have nothing left to believe. Yet they have all encountered the risen Christ in some personal way so that terrifies them. Nevertheless, if one is absolutely critical, it is certainly a question one must ask. John Calvin himself came up with that defense similar to yours because even he knew there was a problem after the Church was removed from the equation. But as I explained to you, his solution as well as those of others either presupposes the existence of the Holy Spirit or some other supernatural mechanism (which itself is not something we know or can accept as true before accepting the Bible as true) or try to give reasons to think that the Bible is special (which fails because a book being special in a material way is not an indication that it is the word of God unless we presuppose more supernatural knowledge regarding the nature of God and how he might operate).
To add something, we know the “Church of Christ” place you attend is most likely not a good place to listen to because they do not have any connection that can be traced to the original Apostles certifying them. They are like a group of people who tell you they are Engineers but cannot tell you where or who certified them to be as such.
D
Denise1957
Guest
I don’t think that the Catholic Church believes that the EO have all truth. It does not. They may have apostolic succession, but some here seem to believe that the Church teaches that the EO are on an equal footing with the Catholic Church. Here’s what Pius Xl says, in his encyclical Mortalium Animos. I believe he is referring mainly the the EO here (but also Protestants):They’re being led into the truth of Christ. Clearly, there is disagreement. But again, have the churches which claim apostolic succession been led into all truth? Why the disagreement? It applies as much to your position as mine.
- “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his successsors”…“Let them hear Lacontius crying out: The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope and life of salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling.”
Link to Mortalium Animos from the Vatican website:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
True Denise. Of course, on this thread and other places, it is said that they do have all truth…usually in an attempt to vainly deflect the implicatiins of them not having all truth. Because it defeats the standard apologetic script that sola scriptura is a cause of division.I don’t think that the Catholic Church believes that the EO have all truth. It does not. They may have apostolic succession, but some here seem to believe that the Church teaches that the EO are on an equal footing with the Catholic Church. Here’s what pius Xl says, in his encyclical Mortalium Animos. I believe he is referring mainly the the EO here (but also Protestants):
Though the recent popes take a somewhat sofeter tone with the EO, the stance is still basically the same. The Catholic Church is the true Church. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t elements of truth in the non-Catholics churches - there are.
- “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his successsors”…“Let them hear Lacontius crying out: The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope and life of salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling.”
Link to Mortalium Animos from the Vatican website:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html
D
Denise1957
Guest
I’m glad that you bring this up. Sola scriptura is but one cause of division. But just because there are divisions, this doesn’t mean that there can’t be one true Church which contains all truth. I understand that non-Catholics will disagree, that’s okay.True Denise. Of course, on this thread and other places, it is said that they do have all truth…usually in an attempt to vainly deflect the implicatiins of them not having all truth. Because it defeats the standard apologetic script that sola scriptura is a cause of division.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Not so much that, Denise. You see, the common syllogism that is used by Catholic apologists is thisI’m glad that you bring this up. Sola scriptura is but one cause of division. But just because there are divisions, this doesn’t mean that there can’t be one true Church which contains all truth. I understand that non-Catholics will disagree, that’s okay.
Premise: Protestants believe scripture is the only infallible rule of faith
Protestants cannot agree on the meaning of scripture
Protestants are divided because they cannot agree on the meaning of scripture.
Conclusion: scripture is an insufficient rule of faith
But what happens if we apply that syllogism to “apostolic churches?”
The RCC, EO and OO believe scripture+tradition+church is the only infallible rule of faith
The RCC, EO and OO cannot agree on the meaning of scripture, tradition and the church
RCC, EO and OO are divided because of those disagreements
Scripture,; tradition and church is an insufficient rule of faith
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Sola Scriptura is a cause of division. Being out of communion with the Successor of Peter is also cause for division.True Denise. Of course, on this thread and other places, it is said that they do have all truth…usually in an attempt to vainly deflect the implicatiins of them not having all truth. Because it defeats the standard apologetic script that sola scriptura is a cause of division.
Having Tradition, Scripture, and Apostolic Succession is certainly better than having just Scripture (even logically), but that is not protection against division unless one is also in communion with the Successor of Peter!!!
So stop trying to create a false dichotomy on what causes division.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
The basic argument against Protestantism is simplerNot so much that, Denise. You see, the common syllogism that is used by Catholic apologists is this
Premise: Protestants believe scripture is the only infallible rule of faith
Protestants cannot agree on the meaning of scripture
Protestants are divided because they cannot agree on the meaning of scripture.
Conclusion: scripture is an insufficient rule of faith
But what happens if we apply that syllogism to “apostolic churches?”
The RCC, EO and OO believe scripture+tradition+church is the only infallible rule of faith
The RCC, EO and OO cannot agree on the meaning of scripture, tradition and the church
RCC, EO and OO are divided because of those disagreements
Scripture,; tradition and church is an insufficient rule of faith
- The Protestants accept the Bible as the word of God without any reason i.e. arbitrary.
D
Denise1957
Guest
The differences you list above do not constitute a syllogism.Not so much that, Denise. You see, the common syllogism that is used by Catholic apologists is this
Premise: Protestants believe scripture is the only infallible rule of faith
Protestants cannot agree on the meaning of scripture
Protestants are divided because they cannot agree on the meaning of scripture.
Conclusion: scripture is an insufficient rule of faith
But what happens if we apply that syllogism to “apostolic churches?”
The RCC, EO and OO believe scripture+tradition+church is the only infallible rule of faith
The RCC, EO and OO cannot agree on the meaning of scripture, tradition and the church
RCC, EO and OO are divided because of those disagreements
Scripture,; tradition and church is an insufficient rule of faith
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
What do you mean, Denise?The differences you list above do not constitute a syllogism.
D
Denise1957
Guest
First I have to ask: how do you know that the Catholic Church teaches the premise and conclusion to which you refer regarding Protestants?What do you mean, Denise?
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Oh…I wouldn’t say the RCC teaches that. I am referring to the argument made by Catholic apologists.First I have to ask: how do you know that the Catholic Church teaches the premise and conclusion to which you refer regarding Protestants?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Actually, that’s not the conclusion we are presenting.Not so much that, Denise. You see, the common syllogism that is used by Catholic apologists is this
Premise: Protestants believe scripture is the only infallible rule of faith
Protestants cannot agree on the meaning of scripture
Protestants are divided because they cannot agree on the meaning of scripture.
Conclusion: scripture is an insufficient rule of faith
The conclusion we are presenting is this: Therefore, an authority on what the Scripture means is required in order to prevent the tens of thousands of divisions based on this paradigm: “I just need to read the Scriptures in order to come to an understanding of truth.”
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
It’s simpler and more accurate than this:Not so much that, Denise. You see, the common syllogism that is used by Catholic apologists is this
Premise: Protestants believe scripture is the only infallible rule of faith
Protestants cannot agree on the meaning of scripture
Protestants are divided because they cannot agree on the meaning of scripture.
Conclusion: scripture is an insufficient rule of faith
But what happens if we apply that syllogism to “apostolic churches?”
The RCC, EO and OO believe scripture+tradition+church is the only infallible rule of faith
The RCC, EO and OO cannot agree on the meaning of scripture, tradition and the church
RCC, EO and OO are divided because of those disagreements
Scripture,; tradition and church is an insufficient rule of faith
Major premise: Protestants believe that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Minor premise: Protestants can’t prove that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Conclusion: Scripture is not the only rule of faith.
P
PRmerger
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)It’s simpler and more accurate than this:
Major premise: Protestants believe that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Minor premise: Protestants can’t prove that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Conclusion: Scripture is not the only rule of faith.
E
Eufrosnia
Guest
Its worse actually. Protestants can’t even prove that Scripture IS A rule of faith.It’s simpler and more accurate than this:
Major premise: Protestants believe that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Minor premise: Protestants can’t prove that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Conclusion: Scripture is not the only rule of faith.
G
Gaelic_Bard
Guest
Different argument though, Isaiah. I was focusing on, with Steve, was the division argument.It’s simpler and more accurate than this:
Major premise: Protestants believe that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Minor premise: Protestants can’t prove that Scripture is the only rule of faith.
Conclusion: Scripture is not the only rule of faith.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The division argument is the best indictment for the Protestant paradigm of, “Me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit.” It speaks for itself.Different argument though, Isaiah. I was focusing on, with Steve, was the division argument.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.