Again though you keep misinterpreting what binding and loosing refers to. In the context provided in Matthew 16 and 18 where the subject of binding and loosing is mentioned, this is referring to the forgiveness of sins, not the declaration of doctrine. The Church does not have the authority to contradict what was revealed to it. Don’t conflate the two issues.The difference in Catholicism would be the Church is ordained by God with the task to bind and loose.
and the faithful transmission of the record of Christ’s work.
This is why I’m not a Protestant. On the one hand, you are suggesting that fallible men were able to provide a faithful transmission of God’s Word.The transmission of the oral word that conflicts with the written word (which provides us the norm by which we are to judge the oral proclamation of the word) is unfaithful and fallible.
By what infallible method have you determined that I have misinterpreted the text?Again though you keep misinterpreting what binding and loosing refers to.
I must know more Protestants than you.I don’t know any Protestant who proposes an adversarial position between Church and scripture.
Yes, the “nuance” is that the Church is to be “submissive” to the Scripture, even though you are begging the question… Whose Scripture interpretation? If the Church has the authority to teach, and Her interpretation is infallible (a doctrine of the Church) then there is no adversarial tension between the Church and Scripture EXCEPT to “personal judgement” Protestants, who would take issue with the Church’s interpretation, and therefore put it in an adversarial position. There is no “nuance” there is the elephant in the room of personal judgement/interpretation.the actual position of protestants is far more nuanced than that.
This is a Protestant teaching which is borne out of the adversarial position that they have created themselves.The transmission of the oral word that conflicts with the written word (which provides us the norm by which we are to judge the oral proclamation of the word) is unfaithful and fallible.
See my edits in bold above pursuant to the following:The VERY EXISTENCE of Protestantism HINGES on the adversarial position of the Scripture and what men of the Church did. Without that, there would be NO Protestantism.
That is where you err. You keep ascribing God’s revelation to man. God’s revelation is God’s revelation. I agree that men were the tool for recording it, but again, the revelation is God’s.Let me share my perspective. By God’s will, fallible men were able to provide an infallible text. By God’s will, fallible men are able to provide infallible doctrine.
No, I say the Church is in error when it proclaims something that is contradictory to the written word.On the other hand, you are suggesting that the Church must be in error in principle because the proclamation is not the written transmission.
You believe that men can judge such a thing as well. That is exactly what the magisterium of the Church does.What really grinds my gears is how you have come to the conclusion that you yourself can judge such a thing since you are also fallible. It is mind-boggling.
Define Church so we’re not talking past each other.The difference in Catholicism would be the Church is ordained by God with the task to bind and loose.
Which Protestants?I must know more Protestants than you.
I would like to know the definition of Church. Who or what? I want to avoid talking past each other.If the Church has the authority to teach
That’s an appropriate challenge. I’m not so sure I can define Church because it’s definition depends on the context. I’m happy to clarify my position for you however.Define Church so we’re not talking past each other.
So you are saying that “Church” means “your definition” of Church because the Catholic Church defined it as such? And then the Catholic Church (something I stress a lot that it doesn’t help to assume this was “the Church created by Christ” as most Protestants don’t buy that )also equals the definition of “Church” to itself?My method is to completely remove myself from the decision process and simply listen to the Church when it definitively interprets Scripture.
I am saying by faith Church means my definition. In contrast by Scripture Alone a Protestant defines Church. That definition is moot without establishing the authenticity of the doctrine. The doctrine itself is a massive logical circle and is therefore void as soon as you realize it. Do I know my definition of Church is right? No! By faith my definition of Church is accurate.So you are saying that “Church” means “your definition” of Church because the Catholic Church defined it as such? And then the Catholic Church (something I stress a lot that it doesn’t help to assume this was “the Church created by Christ” as most Protestants don’t buy that )also equals the definition of “Church” to itself?
Let’s define Sola Scriptura as Protestants have defined it historically:Sola Scriptura is clearly defined as Scripture being the only infallible rule of faith.
No. Scripture was written by men who were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Scripture’s authority derives from its author, who is God (working through human writers). When Protestants say that Scripture alone is infallible, we are not claiming that God is fallible. That would make no sense. How can a fallible God inspire and reveal an infallible Scripture. Protestants mean that Scripture is the only infallible source of doctrine. Traditions can be fallible. Councils, church writers, theologians, etc. can err. Only Scripture, in the Protestant view, can be trusted to be an infallible source of doctrinal truth–which all other sources of doctrine should be measured and tested against.Doesn’t the infallibility of the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christians logically contradict the position that Scripture alone is infallible.
This was actually a great question it made me stop and ponder. Much appreciation!So I agree with your first part. Absolutely. But what I want to ask is why “if I say no” I should not reject the Catholic Church?