Still having difficulty understanding infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmateurPianist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We are talking about infallibility with regards to faith and morals. So if the HS guides the Church, via the Pope, can there be error when teaching on Faith and Morals?
Actually we were talking about the interpretation of John 16:13 (He will guide you into all the truth), specifically about the meaning and implications of the verb “guide”.

Whatever the merits of the possible interpretations of this Scripture may be, they are in the end interpretations.
Sure…so how do we resolve our differences then? Isn’t there a need then for an umpire…that we will both believe is correct? And doesn’t that umpire then have to be “infallible” so that we can have faith and trust in what was pronounced is from God and true?
So you are saying that without an infallible arbitrator an undesirable situation exists of 2 different interpretations of Scripture exist without a way of knowing which is correct.

Sounds undesirable to me too.

To get to infallibility as you propose it I then have to have as base assumptions
  • God designed a solution for this sticky wicket
  • This solution is an arbitration process
  • This solution must be incapable of being incorrect
I also must have as a base assumption this solution crosses organizations (since my phone book list more than one organization).

Since you are Catholic you are proposing of course that your pope is this arbitrator. So I also must hold as a base assumption this arbitrator today exists in your organization and your organization alone.

I understand these are core beliefs that you hold and I am not trying to talk you out of them. My purpose in all of this is just to identify the core beliefs on which infallibility rests.

To me these core beliefs seem fallible, but then again, I don’t hold them as core beliefs.

Anyway, for today this is going to have to be a wrap. Later tomorrow.
 
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).
No offense,but then according to your position, **absolute Truth **is an ambiguity? Either Jesus sended the Holy Spirit or He pulled everyone’s leg?
 
Remember also, that, in Acts1, the apostles actually *cast lots *to to select a new apostle, trusting that Gods will would be done since Jesus was no longer physically present to do it.
 
:bible1:
And ye shall seek me, and find me,
when ye shall search for me
with all your heart.
❤️
- Jeremiah 29:13
+Amateur Pianist . . . the following Catholic link from the Vatican is a . . .* thoroughly* . . . and really quite marvelously clear . . . treatise for understanding the subject of infallibility . . . but in all charity and peace . . . as you have wandered about from pillar to post . . . and 'round about Robinhood’s proverbial barn in your personal expressed thoughts here . . . it’s actually been rather as if you have been playing “hide and seek” with those of us who have responded to the subject post of this thread . . . instantly bouncing-away into vagueries when anything concrete to meditate upon has been given you . . . you seem to much more . . . enjoy . . . embracing “doubt” . . . above considering embracing the sweet incomparable Holy Gift of God of the Christian Faith . . .

If you actually do . . .* sincerely* . . . want an excellent understanding of infallibility in the context of the interaction between God and man . . . the below link will prove invaluable . . . every aspect of **faith **and reason is covered wonderfully if you truly want to understand infallibility . . . if so . . . enjoy . . .

One thing I learned many many years ago is that only the . . . Holy Spirit . . . can draw souls into embracing the gift of knowledge and holy gift of wisdom re infallibility . . . which infallibility is in itself a holy gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church . . . and is taught by our Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church as such . . . if you are really seeking the wisdom of God in this matter . . . then pray that the gift of believing faith may be given to you . . .

:compcoff: Link: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Below is a Catholic “pillar” of the Faith you bounced away from again . . . and yet again . . . that perhaps you should particularly revisit . . . and meditate upon . . .
. . . :coffeeread: . . .
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
81
Sacred Scripture
is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.
Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE
104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it ** not** as human word, "but as what it really is, the Word of God."

In the sacred books,
the Father who is in heaven
comes lovingly ❤️ to meet his children,
and talks with them.

:bible1: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8

:bible1: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but **my words **shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35

“And the
Word
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth.”
- John 1:14
:bible1:

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
 
Not really.

Again the realm of the interpretive (with it being noted by experience and observation that we do err in receiving guidance in avoiding sin),
I do not think there is error in the guidance regarding sin…it is our free will to choose to sin. The teaching or guidance has nothing to do with our choices. We are taught the consequences of our choices…but is still our free will to choose and disregard those consequences.
 
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…👍
The Supreme Court does not make laws…it only interprets the laws of the states and when there is a dispute between states it renders the final interpretation. The only circumstance that would cause the Supreme court to “change” would be a situation where one or more states passed new legislation that forced a new perspective between states. In this case “change” may occur…however, relative to the in place laws their ruling is in fact final and infallible.
 
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

How can I as a fallible human being claim my understanding of this recipe for biscuits is “incapable of being incorrect”?
Your interpretation of the recipe can be incorrect, as you already proved. However, if you follow it exactly as it was written, the recipe itself is infallibly correct. How do we know it’s infallible? Because you probably found it in a cookbook, and it’s been made by many other cooks, probably thousands of times with perfect results. That proves that there is nothing wrong with the recipe. Therefore, it’s not the recipe that is fallible, but your incorrect interpretation of it. If all of the other cooks had no problems with the recipe, would you think they were all wrong and you were the only one that was right? Or, would you realize that it was your own mistake that got you nasty pancakes or biscuits out of it?
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.
At least you found out what your mistake was, so you won’t have to throw out any more nasty tasting biscuits in the future. 😛

Unfortunately, when it comes to poor interpretations of Scripture, we can’t be as sure that we’ll be given a second chance if we refuse to search for the correct and infallible interpretation from someone that knows more about it than we do.
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.
Not when you run out of ingredients because you keep making incorrect interpretations of recipes, without asking for help from someone that knows more than you do about cooking. 😉
 
+AmateurPianist . . . your approach to infallible Sacred :bible1: Scripture and the Faith is simplistic . . . you’re approach to truth is to surface surf/skim the ocean of truth depending upon the deeply flawed and unsound surf board of human reason . . . but who never swims in the waters . . . never dives into its depths . . . and never deep sea dives into the even greater depths of the holy waters of wisdom and knowledge of God and man contained therein . . .

Below is the Catholic answer from our Holy Mother Church’s Magesterium stated in the The Catechism of the Catholic Church . . . which clearly reveals Sacred Scripture is **multi-dimensional **and can be believed on two (2) levels . . . not just one . . . it is not an either/or situation . . . but a **both/and ** type of understanding that is revealed . . . with the second level of knowledge being divided up into three sublevels of perceiving revelations of truth . . .

**. . . :coffeeread: . . .**The senses of Scripture

115 **
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the
literal** and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

**116 **
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

**117 **
The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction."85
  2. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 **
A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the
four** senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

**119 **
"It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, …​

God is the author of Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and it contains infallible truth (truth without error) . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture

**105 **
God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

**106 **
God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

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**."72​
. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Gracious Lord+
 
Richard Krastner,

You completely missed my point. I said over and over in my post that the Holy Father is only reflecting Christ, not man made religion.

At the core of life in the Catholic Church, you do not find carnate man but Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit.

As far as calling the Heavenly Father the only one…there are many references likewise in Scripture and the Gospels of honoring one’s father and mother.

What Christ is actually saying, is in the context of His time, that there is only one supreme authority, and that is God. So if there is a doubt or conflict between parents or God, one chooses to do God’s will, which I learned way back as a child in Catholic grade school.
 
Definition:

Obviously humans are “capable” of error." in anything that humans do.

I have been struggling with understanding this concept for some time.

What makes a statement made by fallible humans infallible. I can think of three ways.
  • The statement is provable
  • The statement is observable
I thought of adding a third “The process used to produce said statement is infallible”, but since the process is a human process we still have the same issues…but now “what makes a process infallible”

How does this apply to God? God of course is infallible but yet perceived and understood by fallible humans. Is any claim made by a human about God of the type “incapable of error”.

More specifically is the statement “God exists” an infallible statement. It is not provable, it is not observable. It is a statement that I believe and accept on faith. I also believe there is good evidence to support this.But in the end I don’t think I can logically prove it to a skeptic.

If the statement “God exists” is not an infallible statement, how can any statement about God made by fallible humans be infallible.

Note…I am not trying to encourage skepticism, I am just wondering how anything we ultimately take by faith be infallible.
The 10 commandments…written in stone…infallible…

Murder. Can’t do it…Abortion has been a constant teaching of the Church as morally wrong infallibly based on the infallible commandment not to murder…Protestants have varied on this…and Contraception is part of that…

Adultery. Homosexuality…The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality. The Church declares infallibly that sins against Chastity are sins against adultery and states this infallibly.

Because of the authority of the Church based on the authority of the supreme law giver, because the Church is the mystery hidden for all ages through which the manifold wisdom of God is known…
 
‘Veritatis Splendor’, an encyclical written by John Paul II, begins with Christ speaking to the rich young man. He tells Christ that he already does all those things…honor his parents, follow the commandments…then Christ tells him to give away all that he has and follow Him, and then he will find perfection. The young man turns away, sad…attached to his riches.

Moral teachings are guides for us. We are incapable of reaching perfection – union with God, without God’s help, His grace.

Jesus told Pilate He is Truth. And Christ is Morality in practice. Absolute truth is found in Christ alone. God does not need us. The rich man and the exchange with Christ deal with the commandments that pertain to our neighbor, not to God, and the first 3 commandments.

Subsequently, morality in its truest sense is found in how we treat those around us. And Christ is the life, the way, and standard of living morality, Christ the perfection and source of all virtues.

Otherwise, morality is reduced to text and interpretation.
 
My point is that both of these discussions involve the interpretation of a text of Scripture and not the wording of Scripture.
Fair enough.

However, let’s take another “essential” doctrine you believe from the Scriptures: God is a Trinity.

That is more than reading the Scripture verse A and repeating A.

It involves interpretation.

Do you ever give as much doubt to this Dogma of the Trinity as you do to the concept of infallibility? (Stop making me type that word!)
 
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).
And you have already acknowledged (in another thread) that you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church in discerning what consists of “Scripture”.
On the 66 books that everybody believes (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) agrees is canonical** I will gladly submit to the authority of the universal church that which agrees and has agreed from the beginning are the word of God.**
This is huge, AP.

In acknowledging that you submit to the authority of you acknowledge that there is an authority outside of Scripture.

And, to revisit our discussion, in this acknowledgement you give a tacit understanding of the dogma of infallibility. (Typed it correctly this time. :))

Unless you believe that this “universal church” erred in discerning that the Shepherd of Hermas is not inspired but that Titus is.
 
If infallibility is confined to faith and moral, I would not see any difficulty about it. That Jesus lived, died and rose again. That there are three persons in the Holy Trinity. There are people who do not believe in these.
 
On earth, who is a higher authority then the Supreme Court or the Pope (at least for Catholics)?
An interesting question in the context of this discussion.

A couple of things. “Judge not, and you shall not be judged.” Christ’s own words. I see the issue as possibly one of extending to the Pope a courtesy we have been taught by Christ to extend to everyone. Because of the position the Pope is in as heir to the throne of Saint Peter, to deny his infallibility is to have a pitiable view of human nature. When the Pope speaks on morality and matters of faith, we must believe he speaks as a Father would to his entire family of children. We can only believe that he has our good in mind, our ultimate salvation. If our neighbor did something we disliked, we have been told clearly beforehand by Christ to not judge that neighbor. Every sin against me is really an attempt to destroy me in some kind or is an attack aimed at my not at my welfare but on my ruin. All sin is the work of the devil, and a consequence of not judging is to deny that the devil is a person. Thus, if we believe in total error that any Pope past present or future is making a mistake on matters of morality, this view is, in light of his position in world affairs, very much akin to either paranoia or else is an error in judgment, or, to use better phraseology is: Committing the sin of judging your neighbor. Due to his high profile and the presumed trials and tribulations that must accompany such responsibility, such judgment is more serious than when committed against the person next to you, but, this is so not on account of it being a more serious sin (for all men are equal in God’s eyes) but because it reflects an inward hostility toward the teaching of Christ, which says clearly that no man is the devil. By taking human form, Christ expelled the devil from human form. Out of misinformation a man might call any given Pope fallible, such as when this man is misled by supposed historical evidence of a past Pope’s complicity with malicious forces.
(Such evidence and such evidence seekers are notoriously speculative and unreliable.) I don’t intend to be mean towards those who have been misled, but how can anyone other than an AntiChrist put forth the view that a Pope is intentionally steering humanity in the wrong direction? Even the very mentally troubled and the ardent fundamentalists either yield or hold their silence out of respect for Christ.
 
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.
"It’s infallible because it is final? Wow! So Hitlers decision to execute 6,000,000 Jews was an infallible decision because it was a final decision by the highest authority in Germany at the time? I know Roe v. Wde is the law of the land, but YOU are saying that it is infallible.
 
"It’s infallible because it is final? Wow! So Hitlers decision to execute 6,000,000 Jews was an infallible decision because it was a final decision by the highest authority in Germany at the time? I know Roe v. Wde is the law of the land, but YOU are saying that it is infallible.
Have you heard of the Nuremberg trials? The actions of Hitler were declared illegal and to never have had legitimacy. I believe all this gentleman meant was that if a german executed a Jew in those years he would not be liable to the highest authority in Germany for any wrong doing. Just so, a person who obeys US laws makes a decision that in infallible with respect to legal authority in the US. The Pope has moral auhority and his infalliblity is with respect to morality. Just as laws may change, future Popes may change the finality of past Popes. There was a thread on this once before, and I was critisized for suggesting this could happen.
 
Have you heard of the Nuremberg trials? The actions of Hitler were declared illegal and to never have had legitimacy. I believe all this gentleman meant was that if a german executed a Jew in those years he would not be liable to the highest authority in Germany for any wrong doing. Just so, a person who obeys US laws makes a decision that in infallible with respect to legal authority in the US. The Pope has moral auhority and his infalliblity is with respect to morality. Just as laws may change, future Popes may change the finality of past Popes. There was a thread on this once before, and I was critisized for suggesting this could happen.
You’re kidding! You think that an infallible decision is relative and subject to change, which would of coarse make that decision not infallible any more. Is that what you are saying, that infallibility can become not infallible because a subsequent “final authority” says it isn’t?
 
Richard Krastner,

You completely missed my point. I said over and over in my post that the Holy Father is only reflecting Christ, not man made religion.

At the core of life in the Catholic Church, you do not find carnate man but Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit.

As far as calling the Heavenly Father the only one…there are many references likewise in Scripture and the Gospels of honoring one’s father and mother.

What Christ is actually saying, is in the context of His time, that there is only one supreme authority, and that is God. So if there is a doubt or conflict between parents or God, one chooses to do God’s will, which I learned way back as a child in Catholic grade school.
John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

This is the only reference to the Holy Father in the bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top