Whose jaws? Lutherans’ jaws?
I think yes.
Contarini:
The problem here is that “infallible” can mean a lot of things. It seems to me that Catholics often use it simply to mean “true.” Protestants (and, arguably, Orthodox) deny that any particular church body is infallible in advance–i.e., that if you follow proper procedure the right answer will follow. That does not mean that all doctrinal positions are up for grabs. A community can say–as confessional Lutherans have said–that they are committed to a certain understanding of the Faith as the correct, Scriptural one.
And this does essentially mean that each particular faith believes its own understanding of the Scriptures/Tradition is the correct one.
Why exactly do Protestants (and, arguably, Orthodox) deny that any particular church body is infallible in advance?
I ask this because I really do think that that if you follow the promting of the Holy Spirit the right answer will follow. I think almost all other Christian groups would agree with this too.
Contarini:
You don’t need an infallible Church to get it right. You just need to get it right.
No. You need the Holy Spirit to get it right-- and the Lord did promise that the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, who the Father sent in Christ’s name, would teach us all things and would remind us of everything Christ said to us.
Consequently, if you get it right, then you are infallible at least in this particular teaching.
Contarini:
Epistemology and Church authority are two different issues and shouldn’t be confused.
Why not?
Contarini:
No one has yet come up with a satisfactory account of how we know that we know what we know. It’s a futile quest from the beginning. An “infallible Church” is not the answer to the questions of modern epistemology.
Maybe in your opinion.
But what if the question of being infallible really is a divinely reavealed truth?
Would modern epistemology be able to reveal this truth?
Contarini:
Again, you’re using “infallible” sloppily. Saying that something is true–or that you know that it is true–is not the same thing as saying that it is infallible.
I disagree. If it’s true as God revealed truth, then the teaching really and truly is infallible.
Contarini:
The difference between the decrees of Trent and the Formula of Concord is that Catholics say that the Fathers of Trent couldn’t err because they were a valid Council, while Lutherans say that the framers of the Council could have erred but didn’t.
Yes. And this comes back to another couple of points that I already brought up to you
before (and also Steadfast if I recall correctly).
You as are focussing on how men will fail God and are therefore stressing that the church may not indeed be error-free after all.
We as Catholics, however, are focussing on how God will never fail us even when we fail him and are therefore stressing that the church will always be error-free despite our failings precisely because God promised this to us.
In your view, you are placing the main thrust of the church’s inability to clearly teach within the parameters of human reason-- therefore stressing that since man is capable of failure that therefore we can only trust the Scriptures on these matters. But that conclusion is not Scriptural in any sense of The Word.
In our view, however, we are placing the main thrust of the church’s ability to clearly teach within the parameters of divine revelation-- therefore stressing that since God is not capable of failure we can trust God on these matters even though we make mistakes. And this conclusion is Scriptural in every sense of The Word.
Edwin, are you considering joining the Catholic faith?
