Sola Scriptura...

[PRmerger]

Two different questions:

Was Peter capable of teaching wrong things?

Not in the area of faith and morals.

Did Peter teach wrong things?

If he did, how would we know? What would we use to measure his teaching against?

Did He promise that certain individuals and the magisterium were incapable of false teaching?

If He didn’t, then what we proclaim is in vain. For how do we know that when we say, “Your sins are forgiven by the Blood of the Lamb!” you will never know if it’s true or false.

That thought is monstrous, indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger: I had not thought of that; keeping silent on that which God wanted to be kept silent. After giving some thought to what you stated I have to agree with you as it seems to me to be quite correct in that is a way the Holy Spirit works so that God’s Word is not distorted or becomes contrary to what God does want to say through the Apostles.

 

[PRmerger]

I read this wrong. Science major I am not.

No problem.

As ALL mammals make milk (even if they lay an egg and don’t have nipples they still make milk like the platypus) and mammals are the only animal that can make milk the logic works (my bad).

Well, all* female* mammals make milk. My husband has never made milk, although he is a mammal.

All female mammals can make milk.
Cows make milk.

Therefore, cows are mammals.

Yep.

 

[PRmerger]

When you say that all female mammals can make milk, you have not excluded the possibility that other creatures can make milk.

Example, please?

 

[Porknpie]

No problem.

Well, all* female* mammals make milk. My husband has never made milk, although he is a mammal. :

Yes I meant to say all female mammals make milk. I do not make milk.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I meant to say all female mammals make milk. I do not make milk.

:whackadoo:

 

[Picky_Picky]

Because you keep talking about of both sides of your mouth.

You say that the inspired authors wrote without error.

But you won’t say that the inspired authors are infallible.

That’s like saying that mammals make milk.

And cows make milk.

But you won’t say that cows are mammals.

It’s just so :whacky: to me.

I think you should ponder this anew. There are two points here:

1 Saying authors have made no error is not the same as saying they are infallible. This point has been made to you several times in this thread, but you don’t seem to grapple with it. You don’t accept it, but neither do you argue with it, you just ignore it. You shouldn’t ignore it, because several posters here think it is at the basis of the errors with your arguments. They are saying your definition of “infallible” does not match the definition used by the rest off us, including the Catholic Church. Please think about this.

2 Your cow syllogism is wrong, as has been shown previously. It is not wrong because of the conclusion (yes, cows certainly are mammals) but because the logic is flawed. Your two premises do not prove your conclusion. The fact that all elephants have ears and that mice have ears does not prove that mice are elephants. The fact that all female mammals produce milk and that cows produce milk does not prove that cows are mammals. I’m not saying cows are not mammals or don’t produce milk but that, as an exercise in logic your argument doesn’t work, and you would do well to drop it. Honestly! Think about it, please!

 

[AbideWithMe]

I think you should ponder this anew. There are two points here:

1 Saying authors have made no error is not the same as saying they are infallible. This point has been made to you several times in this thread, but you don’t seem to grapple with it. You don’t accept it, but neither do you argue with it, you just ignore it. You shouldn’t ignore it, because several posters here think it is at the basis of the errors with your arguments. They are saying your definition of “infallible” does not match the definition used by the rest off us, including the Catholic Church. Please think about this.

2 Your cow syllogism is wrong, as has been shown previously. It is not wrong because of the conclusion (yes, cows certainly are mammals) but because the logic is flawed. Your two premises do not prove your conclusion. The fact that all elephants have ears and that mice have ears does not prove that mice are elephants. The fact that all female mammals produce milk and that cows produce milk does not prove that cows are mammals. I’m not saying cows are not mammals or don’t produce milk but that, as an exercise in logic your argument doesn’t work, and you would do well to drop it. Honestly! Think about it, please!

Thank you for trying yet again to make these points.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

From the Catholic position, it is as though God gave Peter a blank check and agreed to back whatever was written. That’s not what Protestants such as me see in scripture. Just as a small example, the binding and loosing are for things already bound in Heaven; whatever is bound on earth would have already been bound in Heaven, the Heaven bit comes before the earth bit.

Yes, this is a great statement on infallibility.

Anything (that meets the criteria of an infallible pronouncement) said binding is already bound in heaven. That means that when the pope binds something, it can’t be wrong, it’s only an explication of the judgement of Heaven.

So, it’s not just the Catholic position, it’s the logical position given the text.

If the teaching of the faith were guaranteed, there would have been no need for the multiple warnings about false teachers,

Not at all. These warnings only tell us that the popes can’t be false teachers by scriptural definition, since whatever they bind will have been bound in Heaven.

Now, it’s quite possible (in fact, definite) that a pope may not follow those all those teachings (all the popes were, to greater or lesser extents, sinners). But they won’t teach error (in the sense of binding the whole Church infallibly).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I think you should ponder this anew. There are two points here:

1 Saying authors have made no error is not the same as saying they are infallible. This point has been made to you several times in this thread, but you don’t seem to grapple with it. You don’t accept it, but neither do you argue with it, you just ignore it.

No, I think we accept and assume it.

You only think that we don’t “get it.”

The question is: how do you KNOW they made no errors?

WE know because the Church has told us that they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

“I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)

 

[Picky_Picky]

No, I think we accept and assume it.

You only think that we don’t “get it.”

The question is: how do you KNOW they made no errors?

WE know because the Church has told us that they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

“I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)

I was addressing PRmerger, who it seems certainly has not got it so far. No doubt you join me in hoping she will.

By the way, if you are asking me, I don’t know they made no errors, in fact the idea that the works they wrote are inerrant is quite foreign to my understanding, but that’s my personal belief and is not relevant here. I have lumbered into this thread only through frustration at some displays of lack of logic and failure to engage with argument.

Your position (and Augustine’s!) seems to me, in my ignorance, very orthodox. My position follows St Augustine’s logic exactly, given that the Catholic Church has not induced me.

 

[spina1953]

Concerning infallibility, I think it has been covered before but here it is again. According to and stated by the 2nd. Vatican council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, "This infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as extends the deposit of divine revelation, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. This is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of Bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful who confirms his brethren by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or moral.

            The Pope rarely speaks ex cathedra - that is, "from the chair of St. Peter, for the purpose of making an infallible pronouncement. More often and in various ways he states authentic teaching in line with Scripture, tradition, and living experience of the Church, and the whole analogy of faith. 2nd. Vatican Council No.25


 What this says to me is that the Pope and or the Bishops in union with the Pope, do not just make pronouncements out of thin air or decide doctrine just because they decide to. Instead it means that the Pope does not decide doctrine without looking at Scripture, tradition and deposit of faith given to the Church by Christ to Peter and the Apostles.

Seems to me that they may spend a long time before deciding anything as to doctrine in regards of faith and morals Sometimes it might take centuries before something is decided after much prayer and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So the Pope being a human being and the Bishops being a human beings can make mistakes, yet, when it comes to what Jesus taught given to the Church Catholic through the Apostles with the Holy Spirit guiding them concerning that teaching the Pope is then infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I think we accept and assume it.

You only think that we don’t “get it.”

The question is: how do you KNOW they made no errors?

WE know because the Church has told us that they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

“I would not have believed the gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church had induced me.” (St. Augustine, Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6.)

Egg-zactly.

If we apply the paradigm that most of the Protestant posters here have been saying regarding the inspired writers to the magisterium, it still would make the Catholic Church teachings “without error”.

So however one wants to use the nomenclature, what one says for the inspired writers is also that which applies to the magisterium. Whether one wants to say “they wrote without error” because one cannot say “infallible”, well, I’m fine with that.

 

[Porknpie]

I think you should ponder this anew. There are two points here:

1 Saying authors have made no error is not the same as saying they are infallible. This point has been made to you several times in this thread, but you don’t seem to grapple with it. You don’t accept it, but neither do you argue with it, you just ignore it. You shouldn’t ignore it, because several posters here think it is at the basis of the errors with your arguments. They are saying your definition of “infallible” does not match the definition used by the rest off us, including the Catholic Church. Please think about this.

2 Your cow syllogism is wrong, as has been shown previously. It is not wrong because of the conclusion (yes, cows certainly are mammals) but because the logic is flawed. Your two premises do not prove your conclusion. The fact that all elephants have ears and that mice have ears does not prove that mice are elephants. The fact that all female mammals produce milk and that cows produce milk does not prove that cows are mammals. I’m not saying cows are not mammals or don’t produce milk but that, as an exercise in logic your argument doesn’t work, and you would do well to drop it. Honestly! Think about it, please!

Picky, the “statement of fact” logic type is sound below. Adding the word “only” addresses your point above.

s1) milk is only made by mammals
s2) female cows make milk

If follows that female cows are mammals.

Thoughts? I changed my signature pic back to a previous one. Highly recommend “Being Logical” by DQ McInerny

 

[Picky_Picky]

Picky, the “statement of fact” logic type is sound below. Adding the word “only” addresses your point above.

s1) milk is only made by mammals
s2) female cows make milk

If follows that female cows are mammals.

Thoughts? I changed my signature pic back to a previous one. Highly recommend “Being Logical” by DQ McInerny

Agreed: spot on, logical and sound. For a bloke called Pork your knowledge of the cow is splendid.

 

[spina1953]

When Jesus the Christ first began preaching and teaching he did not write anything. he taught the Apostles and when the time came for Jesus to ascend to the Father, He sent the Holy Spirit to remind them of all that He taught them. When the Apostles began preaching and teaching what Jesus taught them they did so orally and did not at first write anything. At some point, some of the Apostles or their disciples under the guidance of the Holy Spirit wrote only some of the things Jesus taught them. Even though they did not write everything that Jesus said did, preached and taught, what they did write was not in any error but those things they felt conveyed those things Jesus taught and preached and said and did. If what they wrote is to be considered to be in any error whatsoever, then all that Jesus Taught preached aid and did would also be in error. There can not be two different things. Either it is to be believed that the Apostles did not teach in error and that they could not by the power of the Holy Spirit teach in error, or that they did teach something in error so by that Jesus taught in error and the Holy Spirit is in error which can not be so since the Holy Spirit is not the author of chaos. This would also mean that the father in heaven is in error which is also can not be as if that were so then God Himself could not exist. Either we believe that the Word of God given to us in the words of man through Jesus the Christ and taught by the Apostles and passed on to the Catholic Church or we don’t. IIs as clear as that.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, this is a great statement on infallibility.

Anything (that meets the criteria of an infallible pronouncement) said binding is already bound in heaven. That means that when the pope binds something, it can’t be wrong, it’s only an explication of the judgement of Heaven.

So, it’s not just the Catholic position, it’s the logical position given the text.

Not at all. These warnings only tell us that the popes can’t be false teachers by scriptural definition, since whatever they bind will have been bound in Heaven.

Now, it’s quite possible (in fact, definite) that a pope may not follow those all those teachings (all the popes were, to greater or lesser extents, sinners). But they won’t teach error (in the sense of binding the whole Church infallibly).

Again, you don’t order it in the proper sense; it isn’t that whatever is bound on earth is then bound in Heaven, but rather, whatever is properly preached is already settled in Heaven. From that we can compare things that are already settled in Heaven with current teaching to see if they line up. That is why we have Paul laying out the gospel and then saying, if I come back and preach a different gospel, let me be damned. If an angel from Heaven itself shows up and preaches a different gospel, different than what has been settled, let them be damned.

It is possible, as Jesus’ statement makes clear, that the true faith is in danger of disappearing, if not, Jesus would not have to make the statement He does. Also, the warnings about teachings could be shrugged off if there was no danger of false teaching. We have to be clear that the idea of false teaching is applied to the leaders of the churches. If someone presents a teaching opposed to what has already been settled, they are wrong. And, here enters all the splits in Christendom; East from West, and the the fractures springing off from each. In short, the claims all settle in around, “you are now teaching something that is against what is already settled.” In the East vs. West split an prominent example is the infallibility doctrine itself as applied to “the chair of Peter.”

 

[onenow1]

You got this the other way around…Tradition came first before Scripture. The foundation of Scripture is Sacred Tradition.
.

Hi, surly we all know the author, the Holy Spirt along with fallible persons,with the loving hand of God in the Holy Spirit; used there God given mind as men as best as they could, to spread the Gospel in words of man, in the free will Spirit of God. Without a guiding hand of the church in tradition, utilizing its wisdom given to it by the Son of God as it,s head with the protection of the see of Peter promised by Jesus in Matt. 16:18.
How else could the church last 2000yrs with so many challenges it has faced and continues to face.

God Bless
onenow1

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Agreed: spot on, logical and sound. For a bloke called Pork your knowledge of the cow is splendid.

Now that was funny!

:clapping:

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Again, you don’t order it in the proper sense; it isn’t that whatever is bound on earth is then bound in Heaven, but rather, whatever is properly preached is already settled in Heaven.

Ummm, yeah, that’s what I said. Maybe you read it too fast.

From that we can compare things that are already settled in Heaven with current teaching to see if they line up.

No need. Jesus promised that whatever St. Peter preached (under certain circumstances) WOULD line up with what was settled in Heaven.

Why do you have such a hard time believing Him?

That is why we have Paul laying out the gospel and then saying, if I come back and preach a different gospel, let me be damned. If an angel from Heaven itself shows up and preaches a different gospel, different than what has been settled, let them be damned.

True, because St. Paul had already lined up what his preaching would consist of (which he recieved through personal revelation) with the teachings of St. Peter (cf. Gal 1:15ff).

Now, when there arose an issue on which St. Peter, and all the Magisterium with him, hadn’t issued any teaching (circumcision required or not), he went to Jerusalem to get the answer from St. Peter and the Magisterium.

It is possible, as Jesus’ statement makes clear, that the true faith is in danger of disappearing, if not, Jesus would not have to make the statement He does.

Yes, of course. If we don’t follow the leaders He authorized, this could happen. And for many today, it has happened. But the Church will prevail, regardless.

Also, the warnings about teachings could be shrugged off if there was no danger of false teaching. We have to be clear that the idea of false teaching is applied to the leaders of the churches.

True. In fact, many bishops advocated Arianism. Some advocated protestantism.

If someone presents a teaching opposed to what has already been settled, they are wrong.

Already settled in Heaven. Sometimes not so settled on Earth.
For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the hypostatic union, etc., had certainly been settled in Heaven. So, when St. Peter’s successor, or the successors of the Apostles collectively, declares on these matters, they are guaranteed to be declarations in line with what is already settled in Heaven.

Pretty good description of the charism of infallibility.