Still having difficulty understanding infallibility

[PRmerger]

But I have also interpreted said recipe in error. Once I used a tablespoon of baking powder where the recipe said baking soda when making pancakes. I honestly thought they were the same thing.

It took horrible tasting pancakes and correction from my wife to realize my error of interpreting said recipe. I have not made said error in interpreting since.

Right. You misinterpreted. And there is a correct interpretation that can be infallibly known. Use baking soda, not baking powder.

One is correct and the other is not. And you were able to see which one was the correct one. Infallibly.

Eat my flesh, and drink my blood. Not symbolically eat my flesh and drink my blood.

One is correct and the other is not.

 

[AmateurPianist]

This post has produced much thought. I am a studen of thought. I am amused when I see the proposition that things must be reasonable, particularly when Protestants approach things taught by the Church…Do they?

Reason does not dictate necessarily that the Bible is the Word of God.

Reason does not dictate necessarily that the 10 commandments were given by God.

Reason does not dictate necessarily that the world was created by God.

Reason does not dictate necessarily that there is a God.

This is Catholic Answers and by default those that are here are not here by reason alone, necessarily.

When an individual translates their thinking out of Reason into things believed by Faith…Reason can be a nemesis or a tool for further growth…

Paul in explaining the Old Testament with his letters as I see it does not necessarily appeal to reason and yet those of Faith constantly turn to reason…

Reason is the substance of those things hoped for the evidence of things not seen…?

Reason is part of our created being and Faith is a gift…they work hand in hand…we can reason ourselves into believing and sometimes what we believe is not reasonable…sometimes people choose to reason because they choose not to believe.

The question may even be asked…what came first, reason or faith…we trusted our parents long before we were able to reason…I believe some thought should be given to this.

…which is what sort of got me down this rabbit hole to start with.

I think it was some thread that talked about the advantages of infallibility with respect to something (forgot what it was).

Then the thought came to mind that that a claim of infallibility is only as sound as the foundation it rests on.

Then I started thinking of all the things that must be true for this claim of infallibility to be true. It started with interpretations of Scripture and then went back ultimately to the existence of God which can not be proven and is not observable.

It seemed to me at the time that the foundation of infallibility had a very fallible foundation.

Then I concluded the existence of God was something you just take by faith.

Then I started working foreward and concluded there was other stuff that I believed more because I took it by faith than anything else. Like the Bible as the Word of God. Or the trinity.

The thought process ended with my conclusion of that maybe one difference is that we just have a different set of core beliefs.

Then I thought that this thought process would be interesting to share. Maybe I was thinking wrong.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian;8655597:

Point taken…amend statement to “any human interpretation of Scripture”

Now that you have allowed one exception, how do you know that Paul is interpreting the OT infallibly?

One of the problems with Protestant thought is this. It is heavily weighted towards reason.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God, because I was born into the Church, I trusted my parents to bring me up in the Church and in time I reasoned that the Church was correct.

Protestants have no Authority…and weigh heavily on The Bible as Authority using reason…ie “Evidence that demands a Verdict”…using Prophecy, etc and relying on the fallible opinions that lead only to a belief that may or may not be true…The inability to provide ample evidence that The Bible is the word of God the Protestant approach is to reason into Faith.

There must be some reason why we were created to trust and have faith before we could reason?

Timothy,remmember what you learned as a child…to trust or to reason?

 

[tskrobacz]

Because the supreme court says something certainly does not make it infallible, consider Roe v. Wade and the question of infallability cannot be asked for Catholics only. If something is infallable it is infallable for everyone.

Wrong, it is infallible because it is final. Whether you agree with Roe vs Wade or not the ruling in that case is clearly the law of the land and until changed otherwise it stands as the final position of the US Supreme Court.

 

[tskrobacz]

So, help me understand this statement. The US Supreme Court is as old as the USA. Based on this premise the concept of infallibility waited for the establishment of 13 colonies, establishment of the USA and the Supreme Court. Do you really mean this?

Sorry, I did not mean it “originated” with the Supreme Court…I simply meant that the same concept has been applied there.

 

[PRmerger]

Then the thought came to mind that that a claim of infallibility is only as sound as the foundation it rests on.

Then I started thinking of all the things that must be true for this claim of infallibility to be true. It started with interpretations of Scripture and then went back ultimately to the existence of God which can not be proven and is not observable.

It seemed to me at the time that the foundation of infallibility had a very fallible foundation.

Then I concluded the existence of God was something you just take by faith.

Then I started working foreward and concluded there was other stuff that I believed more because I took it by faith than anything else. Like the Bible as the Word of God. Or the trinity.

The thought process ended with my conclusion of that maybe one difference is that we just have a different set of core beliefs.

Then I thought that this thought process would be interesting to share. Maybe I was thinking wrong.

You are exactly right. Your belief in the Trinity comes from the very same methodology that our belief in the infallibility of the Church arises. If you dismiss the methodology for arriving at the conclusion that the Church is infallible (I hate spelling that word! Stop making me type it!) then you must dismiss all of your theology.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Well, if the HS is there to guide, how can there be error then?

I can think of a couple logical possibilities here. For example consider the subject area of sin.

Now we come to the specific question of infallibility, by which the successors of Peter continue to confirm the brethren. Since the successors of Peter have the same Petrine authority, which comes ultimately from Christ, to bind and loose, they have the authority to bind the faithful in matters pertaining to salvation – that is, in faith or morals. Now, if a Pope could bind the faithful to error, it would be a clear triumph of the powers of Hell, because the entire Church would be bound to follow the error under Christ’s own authority. Obviously, this cannot happen.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

Well, if we knew, we would be God, isn’t it? Or should you trust in Jesus own words…that the HS will guide the Church for eternity?

*First, Scripture. Such passages as: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; to you I give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven”, and “Do you love me, Peter. Feed my sheep”, and “I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail. You in turn must confirm your brethren”, have always been taken to refer to a special role for Peter in the establishment of the Church, and special divine protection for Peter in the exercise of his authority.
*

Well, which Church was in existence when the Scriptures were written? Who compiled and bound the canon of the Bible that you have today?

Or your understanding of the words of Jesus? Or is it lack of trust in Jesus words to guide the Church to all truth till the end of time?

I get that this is what you believe. It is based the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16 amongst other places.

But whenever an infallible text of wording ‘A’ is said to have meaning ‘B’, there is a fallible interpretive layer that exists that translates text ‘A’ into meaning ‘B’.

 

[PRmerger]

But whenever an infallible text of wording ‘A’ is said to have meaning ‘B’, there is a fallible interpretive layer that exists that translates text ‘A’ into meaning ‘B’.

But AP, why is it that you accept that Jesus is Lord? Is it because you accept the Scriptures that say he is (1 Cor 12:3)?

Why do you not dismiss it and say, “Well, that’s just my personal interpretation of 1 Cor 12:3.” I could be wrong and Jesus may not be Lord.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Right. You misinterpreted. And there is a correct interpretation that can be infallibly known. Use baking soda, not baking powder.

One is correct and the other is not. And you were able to see which one was the correct one. Infallibly.

Eat my flesh, and drink my blood. Not symbolically eat my flesh and drink my blood.

One is correct and the other is not.

Actually I think I used baking soda instead of baking powder. Anyway, as I recall the biscuits were really gross and thrown into the trash.

But I am struggling with understanding

And there is a correct interpretation that can be infallibly known.

How can I as a fallible human being claim my understanding of this recipe for biscuits is “incapable of being incorrect”?

It seems to me the best I can do is taste the product when it comes out of the oven. If they taste good, then I would assume I followed and interpreted the recipe correctly. If they taste bad, I would assume there is an error in my part in either understanding or following the recipe.

And then I would throw 'em in the trash and try again.

I have forgotten the point.,oh I guess it was that the relationship of infallible writings to fallible readers with fallible understandings occurs all the time in the “real life”. And it seems to work fine.

 

[fhansen]

I can think of a couple logical possibilities here. For example consider the subject area of sin.

I get that this is what you believe. It is based the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16 amongst other places.

But whenever an infallible text of wording ‘A’ is said to have meaning ‘B’, there is a fallible interpretive layer that exists that translates text ‘A’ into meaning ‘B’.

But in the end aren’t you just asserting that it’s impossible for God to ensure correct doctrine in His Church?

 

[AmateurPianist]

But AP, why is it that you accept that Jesus is Lord? Is it because you accept the Scriptures that say he is (1 Cor 12:3)?

Why do you not dismiss it and say, “Well, that’s just my personal interpretation of 1 Cor 12:3.” I could be wrong and Jesus may not be Lord.

But if I say that 1 Cor. 12:3 means (my translation)

Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

there is no interpretive layer because I am saying in effect that A=A.

The minute I start to say that A=B in terms of meaning you are adding an interpretive layer on top of the Scripture. And sometimes these differences can be subtle.

Let me give two examples.

Protestants will here will claim “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (the text with meaning A). And then superimpose an interpretation “Therefore Mary (being a part of the pronoun ‘All’ sinned”. And the only subtlety here is the scope of the pronoun ‘All’.

Of course Catholics will then (correctly) point out “Have aborted fetuses sinned?” And then you get into a 20 page thread on the Immaculate Conception. All starting with the scope of the pronoun ‘All’. And the interpretation of Romans 3:23.

Of course the other one is the “this rock” of Matthew 16:18. How many threads here have been devoted to the meaning of “this rock”. I get that Catholics interpret “this rock” to mean Peter and are convinced that it is the one true meaning of the text. And you might be right. But my point is that this discussion is the interpretation of Matthew 16:18.

My point is that both of these discussions involve the interpretation of a text of Scripture and not the wording of Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

But if I say that 1 Cor. 12:3 means (my translation)

there is no interpretive layer because I am saying in effect that A=A.

The minute I start to say that A=B in terms of meaning you are adding an interpretive layer on top of the Scripture. And sometimes these differences can be subtle.

Let me give two examples.

Protestants will here will claim “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (the text with meaning A). And then superimpose an interpretation “Therefore Mary (being a part of the pronoun ‘All’ sinned”. And the only subtlety here is the scope of the pronoun ‘All’.

Of course Catholics will then (correctly) point out “Have aborted fetuses sinned?” And then you get into a 20 page thread on the Immaculate Conception. All starting with the scope of the pronoun ‘All’. And the interpretation of Romans 3:23.

Of course the other one is the “this rock” of Matthew 16:18. How many threads here have been devoted to the meaning of “this rock”. I get that Catholics interpret “this rock” to mean Peter and are convinced that it is the one true meaning of the text. And you might be right. But my point is that this discussion is the interpretation of Matthew 16:18.

My point is that both of these discussions involve the interpretation of a text of Scripture and not the wording of Scripture.

I’ll ask a very simple question:

Do you believe the letters of writers of the OT & NT are fallible? Yes or No?

 

[Nicea325]

This is your interpretation and is fallible

Much like your interpretations?

 

[AmateurPianist]

But in the end aren’t you just asserting that it’s impossible for God to ensure correct doctrine in His Church?

Not really.

There is a difference between what is possible for God to do (which is anything) and what he actually does. It is possible for God to have created intelligent life 2 billion light years from here. Whether God has actually done so I have no idea because He has not revealed this to us (given that He has no reason to do so).

And there is the issue on whether it is possible for the church to err in the receiving of said guidance (the Scripture being “He will guide you into all truth”). Again the realm of the interpretive (with it being noted by experience and observation that we do err in receiving guidance in avoiding sin),

 

[AmateurPianist]

I’ll ask a very simple question:

Do you believe the letters of writers of the OT & NT are fallible? Yes or No?

Not sure I understand question. You mean the books of Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, etc.

The letters of Paul that are contained within Scripture?
’
Answer is that Scripture is infallible. Of course this is an assumption that I take by faith and not something that is observable or provable to a skeptic.

And this is assuming that one can apply the word “infallible” to core beliefs that we have that everything else hinges on (back to the question of is the statement “God exists” fallible or infallible).

 

[Nicea325]

Not sure I understand question. You mean the books of Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, etc.

The letters of Paul that are contained within Scripture?
’
Answer is that Scripture is infallible.

So if scripture is infallible,when logic conclude its authors evidently were infallible when teaching about God? Now that is not to say they are ALWAYS infallible in all aspects of life. Do not confuse impeccability with infallibility.

 

[fhansen]

Not really.

There is a difference between what is possible for God to do (which is anything) and what he actually does. It is possible for God to have created intelligent life 2 billion light years from here. Whether God has actually done so I have no idea because He has not revealed this to us (given that He has no reason to do so).

And there is the issue on whether it is possible for the church to err in the receiving of said guidance (the Scripture being “He will guide you into all truth”). Again the realm of the interpretive (with it being noted by experience and observation that we do err in receiving guidance in avoiding sin),

As individuals we can err by sinning-but it’s acknowledged by our faith that that we’ll do so due to our weakness. But the gift of infallibility is a gift which is said to overcome admitted human weaknesses, for the purpose of ensuring sound doctrine. Otherwise, we may not even be able to discern such a thing as the existence of sin for example-sin, itself, being taught by Church doctrine.

 

[pablope]

Well, if the HS is there to guide, how can there be error then?

 

[CopticChristian]

Wrong, it is infallible because it is final. Whether you agree with Roe vs Wade or not the ruling in that case is clearly the law of the land and until changed otherwise it stands as the final position of the US Supreme Court.

Ok…lets look at Supreme Court rulings. Yesterday Roe vs Wade declared the right to privacy and you say it is infallible…and equate that to final…

Supreme Court rulings are infallible…until they are overturned and then they are not final…they only speak of what is expected for people to abide by until another ruling is proclaimed meaning that they are never final and never infallible…they are subject to change…

 

[AmateurPianist]

So if scripture is infallible,when logic conclude its authors evidently were infallible when teaching about God? Now that is not to say they are ALWAYS infallible in all aspects of life. Do not confuse impeccability with infallibility.

I accept the infallibility of Scripture as a core belief of mine.

I am not sure whether a belief in the infallibility of Scripture logically means its authors were incapable of being incorrect whenever they taught about God. I do know that this logic does not work when I apply it to other areas of life. An example being the author of my biscuit recipe may have written an infallible recipe. This does not mean that every recipe he wrote was error free.

(this leaves aside the larger issue of what makes a biscuit recipe infallible other than the results of following recipe taste good).