Posted on 12/30/2011 7:07:29 PM PST by rzman21
I might say the same about Maccabbees. :)
You could say what you want about them but that does not mean they are Scripture . It doesn’t mean they were written by the Holy Spirit and unlike real Scripture written by the Holy Spirit they contradict each other .
Then please tell me what constitutes ‘real scripture’. Which books please.
How does Maccabbees contradict the other books of the bible?
Did i post this" It does not show up in my comments
I think some Traditional RCs are asking, where is the Inquisitions when you need them, and i can understand why, but that is not how the N.T. effected obedience and discipline of Scriptural doctrinal deviations, nor were they always doing only that.
See here for more in the issue of access to the Bible by the laity in the common tongue.
What is also relevant in this issue is the degree of magisterial perspicuity, and the priority placed on enabling the common people, who heard Jesus gladly, (Mk. 12:37) to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly, (Col. 3:16) as directly from the assured word, the Scriptures, as Rome expanded as a Roman-type bureaucracy.
Most people were illiterate, but rather than do as the puritans, with their “old deluder satan act, which provided for schools so that the people be not take advantage of through ignorance, The basic policy that later developed was one that was akin to “a dumb soldier is a good soldier,” despite the grace promised to those who study the Scriptures, best to only let the professions have direct access to the sword of the Spirit, which was usually limited even to them, and let them deal with opponents, and let the laity only receive directly from Scripture what little they did in church, than risk heresies based on misuse of knowledge. A valid concern, but which presupposes Rome was irreproachable by laity, and only made them more vulnerable to the very thing they sought to protect them from]
., as it relates to the RC claim as to the magisterium preventing confusion. While it is understandable that not everything can be addressed, or always promptly, the continued lack of coherence as to no less a matter as to whether the laity could read the Bible can be seen as revealing
From the Catholic Encyclopedia page (http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=10624) which your quote came from, we read,
(1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not promulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv).
(2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of Bohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of the Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text ( St. Gregory VII, "Epist.", vii, xi).
The second document belongs to the time of the Waldensian and Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the pope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli; Hurter, "Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III", Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.)....
It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books . According to the third rule, the Old Testament may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate.
The fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this practice.
Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix.
Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it.
This doubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible , by the Bull "Unigenitus" issued by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the Bull "Auctorem fidei" issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI ; the warning against allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816.
But the Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844.
In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.
The comment about the index is one I made. Your more extensive quote is much appreciated.
See last post; further extensive exchanges are hardly worthy of the time they take, and have become redundant. These are not all proof read.
And if he is wrong, then it is just another example of many approved and variant works by Roman Catholics, and the practical failure of the magisterium to provide a wide scope of perspicuous, consistent, approved teaching to the common Catholic.
So you would hope. But you do not understand the Magisterium and how it works. Perhaps someday you shall.
“If you want an understanding of how the Magisterium practically works, ask a random group of Catholics to define this”
Why would I do this, rather than asking for instruction from the magisterium to answer this questions correctly the first time?
You do this far too often. Note the context and follow the argument, which proceeded from the issue of variant views among RCAs, which you exampled (though you took him out of context as well), and the practical efficacy of the magisterium in the light of claims made for it, and thus the level of understanding among the average Roman Catholic is pertinent. Either the church you seek to sell overall produces ignorant and liberal Catholics due to their poor learning skills, or this is what Rome now effectually fosters, as some Traditional Catholics charge.
“and how many infallible teachings there are, among others things, and you will get different answers.”
Well, for sure, but I’m not quite sure how polling the laity is evidence of anything other than the fact that the extent of infalliability is not the same as understanding how the magisterium works. I agree with you wholeheartedly, that this is one of the most important questions, and it’s one that I had to go through when I became Catholic.
The point is that there is uncertainly in Roman Catholicism even as to what is infallible as well as the meaning of teachings, while attacking reliance upon fallible interpretation which Roman Catholics often purport her magisterium overall solves.
The list that I gave you has all the major doctrinal issues, there may be a few others, which is why I’ve asked those with more experience to look over the list.
When they provide an infallible list of all to date, as requested, then get back to us. Rome itself will be interested.
You begin with the 21 ecumenical, but surely you know that not everything such say is considered infallible, or that of the pope in giving decrees, and where the infallible part begins and ends can see disagreement. I do not think the CCC explains that problem. Thus the need for an infallible canon of all infallible decrees thus far given.
“For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision. — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
“as no one can point you an infallible list of all infallible statements.”
Balderdash.
Balderdash? Then either provide it or apologize for giving a misleading answer!
“And relative little is provided infallibly, most especially on Bible texts.”
Trent defines the infalliable Canon.
Thanks for affirming my previous statement, but rather than the obvious, understand it as on the meaning of Bible texts.
“Seventy percent of Roman Catholics do not understand the Eucharist.”
What do you think my calling is?
Since you never tell us, then what should we think?
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the instruction is not as good as it ought to be. Even in my RCIA class I had to go to an exceptionally good bishop before I finally got what I really needed. And even then it took considerable study on my own to understand what I needed to understand.
That is different than the PR we typically hear.
And even then, there is just so much stuff.
Indeed. And they think i am verbose. CFs wrote great swaths in apologetics, and I read that the Bulls of the popes from 540 to 1857 fills forty-one volumes.
“In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible.”
Well of course they do. Just like protestants do. That there exists disagreement does not change what is true.
The latter is true, but the many Roman Catholic apologetical ministries and their content testifies that the official magisterium leaves much in doctrine to be explained, and open to some interpretation, and allowing some disagreement, while they disallow private interpretation and repeat despite “the task of interpretation being entrusted to the bishops in communion with the.. Bishop of Rome,” (CCC 85) as if that was sufficient to settled everything. Some things are infallibly defined, but even what is can require interpretation as well as its meaning, while SS can be shown it can effect a wide common concurrence on on core truths and recognize boundaries, while it is those who hold to sola ecclesia who deny the core truths we both agree on.
“Then there are the big issues, like evolution.”
Well, evolution is not a doctrinal issue. It’s not something that we are bound on.
It is, at least as affirming God created as described, rightly understood (i allow a limited degree of interpretation), versus atheism, and rejecting historical events as real, which the approved commentary in your official Bible does.
My personal belief is that the current scientific understanding is wrong, that species do not form from other species. We have exactly zero instances where such has been observed.
At least we agree on something.
“You would think Catholic theologians could at least be unified on Luther and the Reformation. Some say Luther was sent by Satan, others think he wasn’t such a bad guy.”
I don’t like Luther because of how he treated the Reformers that disagreed with him. But you have to understand, he was a Priest. He was invited to Trent. Most of what he taught was accepted by the Church and incorporated into the Church. The Church does not treat Luther as it’s mortal enemy. That’s something I’m not sure is clear. There have been many scismatics.
I esteem as well as disapprove of him in some ways. But the varying views on him go much beyond this, and this is why we can spend lots of time refuting a Roman Catholic who thinks Luther was a devil, and that he had no prior support in rejecting some books, while another is more objective.
“yet apparently may be received back with no required repentance.”
I’m not sure why that’s so puzzling. If Luther had repented, he too would have been welcomed back. We are not privy to all that went on behind the scenes.
I said “apparently...no repentance,” which Scripture requires (if they were indeed in error).
“while interpretations of ecclesiam nulla salus statements still vary.”
Extra ecclesium nulla salus is contrary to what the Church teaches. We had this discussion earlier. Yes, the Feeneyites dispute it but the Church rejects it, citing Romans which shows that God is sovereign, even over his Church.
Again, even here i see different interpretations of Lumen Gentium and the CCC differently, which i often (especially the former) quote from in such a case.
“Rome assures its members that “the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free from doctrinal or moral error,”
See, this is the problem. Someone picks up a book with Nihil Obstat and picks out a statement and then goes and say, “the Church teaches X!”. Nihil Obstat is a ‘negative’ proclamation. It’s important to understand that ‘free of error’, does not mean ‘proclaims what the Church teaches’, or even ‘the Church has a definitive opinion on this issue’.
The problem is that ‘free of error’ refers to doctrinal or moral error, and though it is a negative, it means something positive, that if the book contains doctrinal or moral teaching then it is true, as it cannot be in error. A stamped work denying that the story of Jonah and the fish actually happened, as the approved NAB notes teach, cannot be considered false teaching, though it amounts to Jesus referencing a fable in asserting His literal resurrection would take place. (Mt. 12:39,40) Which leads to....
“Such responses are hardly worth replying to.”
You are simply asserting your opinion. You look at a passage and argue “it appears to me” as X.
The context was that assurance of doctrine is based upon the premise of perpetual assured formulaic infallibility” as Catholic is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” which you say is “Perhaps in your mind.” which kind of superficial form of disengagement i see as hardly worth replying to, for,
“If submission to infallible decrees is not based on the premise that the sacred magisterium is infallible when speaking universally on faith and morals, then you have not the mind of a Roman Catholic.”
As I said, this is controversial? No, it’s not controversial. Calling such ‘formuliac etc’, is merely your distaste for the teaching.
Despite your mind reading again, this description is entirely fitting, as it is most specifically by use of a a prescribed form, which Vatican Two and the CCC (891) details, based upon PI from Vatican 1, (in Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4), that you are assured a teaching is infallible.
“Rome may claim such, but assurance of her decrees does not rest upon it, and Rome can autocratically define evidence as supporting her...But the premise of assured infallibility is what is behind Rome’s claim to supremacy.”
But infalliability comes from Christ’s pronouncement to Peter. You are asserting that it’s circular, while dismissing the core of the argument, that the Church argues that their authority comes from Christ, through Peter.
Rather, it is you is ignoring the means by which that interpretation has authority. There are different interpretations of Mt. 16:16, including by CFs, and what makes this one authoritative is that Rome defines her magisterium as perpetually, assured infallible, invoking this, thus it has authority.
This isn’t controversial either, it’s right there in the Catechism. Frankly, for someone arguing that he can’t understand what it is Catholics teach, most of your answers are right there, in the Catechism. I should know! I got pretty familiar reading it as a protestant and then finding out I’d been lied to about what the Church actually teaches.
You are not seeing the problem If all i want to do is know what Rome basically states, then the CCC substantially fulfills that purpose, but if you think most of the answers to the details, underlying issues and and proofs, and interpretation which i deal with are all right there in the Catechism, then you would be mistaken, and make a mockery of the extensive apologetical works which address aspects which the CCC does not get into. For that works such as the Catholic Encyclopedia were written, which i have often quoted, among other theological works, ministries and authoritative persons in Rome.
The the CCC says that infallibility comes from Christ’s pronouncement to Peter is not solving anything. I well know this is what Rome teaches, but the issue is the basis for this interpretation being held as correct over others, which leads the AIM defining itself as assured infallible.
In the issues dealt with here, you are not going to find polemics dealing with reasons pro and con or belief in the PV of Mary, or the contextual meaning of adelphoi, or effectively deal with the the challenges to the claim of unanimity, or where all an infallible list of all infallible statement are, or which a somewhat apologetical work as the Catholic Encyclopedia might.
As relates to the issue at hand, while the CCC may provide Scripture texts in support of a teaching, this does not mean such supports everything in the doctrine being taught (such as , 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7; 2 Macc 12:46 in support of purgatory: 1031,32), nor does a Scripture reference being invoked even in an infallible definition necessarily mean that this verse has been infallibly interpreted. And which has much substantiation.
And when it comes to Peter being the Rock, while it affirms that, being post Vatican Two it also affirms,
“On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424)
Nor is all that the CCC teaches infallible, and thus preserved from error, as it is not in itself an infallible teaching, but can only provide teachings from infallible statements (as per Rome), but whether it is or not doing so precisely or at all can be open to some interpretation.
The interesting thing is how I came about to read the Catechism in the first place. For one, I applied the principle “in order to know what the church teaches as true, I must consult the Church teachings, not what others who are opposed to the Church have to say”.
And i often provide more substantiation from referenced Catholic sources, even popes, than most Catholics, many of whom reference nothing, and have dealt with reasons for them, and details the CCC does not get into. And if it were so needful here, you could have quoted and referenced the CCC, as i have with others and will here if needed.
“But the assured infallibility premise is the main issue.”
Then you’ll have to take it up with the Gospels.
No, if assurance could be had by the Scriptures as supreme than the AIM of Rome would lose one its reasons for its supreme authority requiring assent of faith.
“he evidences some credentials as an apologist for Rome.”
It should be self-evident who I favor. :)
So Keating states,
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.”
and you look to the catechism (966) to provide proof from Scripture? Or you favor yourself as superior to him?
“rejecting the other Catholics when they oppose you.”
You misunderstood what I said. I said, that, “right as it is”, I believe it to be insufficient to convince evangelicals.
You did call other Roman Catholics wrong.
This is a prudential argument. I agree that Keating is correct in what he teaches, I just think there are better ways to go about it. I think, ultimately, the best evidence in favor of infalliability comes from Matthew and what the Gospels teach of the office provided to Peter. If you can explain apostolic succession, you should be able to get to magesterial infalliability.
That is your stratagem, but Keating was simply more straightforward in his book. You can appeal to Scripture, but again, that would just be an interpretation. But what the AIM decrees is assured truth which must be assented to by Roman Catholics.
But this is just a personal opinion. I’m sure Mr. Keating would have other arguments himself.
One of many.
“you do not look at linked material”
Given how I destroyed CW’s argument by fully quoting his linked material, I cannot see why you would make this already proven claim to be false.
It is not false, but proven. You have ignored linked material before and gone on as if none was given or said, “Citation again” or “Evidence would be nice.” when they had been given.
As for CW, you a link was provided to sourced material? (i have not followed it much.) And you actually provided substantive proof that there was substantive historical proof for the assumption, or really destroy his whole argument on a detail?
But hey, go ahead. Tell porkies about what you link to and see if I catch it. :)
Who are you calling swine? More subtle than your last insult to me which was deleted by the RM. Your often unwarranted resorting to insinuating motives is not helpful either.
You would do better to cite the Pope, but I know why you don’t. :) I
“If you want more from popes on the changeability of Rome i will look forward to providing such.”
I’m not sure what’s your ultimate goal here. You seem to believe that if you can show that person x and person y disagrees that this somehow contradicts what the magesterium teaches. Again, the magisterium works in unity, not as individuals, and I am not certain that you understand this. If you did, then I suspect you would not be engaging in this tactic.
First, back to your insinuation why i do not mention popes. If you has followed one of the links you ignored then you would have seen they are quoted when pertinent, but the issue at subject was the Assumption, and in declaring that, even if the Pope was giving infallible reasons then it would not prove it except for you. And as that was the issue then i did reference the pope indirectly, by quoting Keating whose reasons are based on the Pope's word. But as the issue was assurance coming from the AIM and and not the weight of Scripture, then quoting assertions of popes is not pertinent. Also, even (or especially) popes need interpretation:
in the Church there is a very extensive domain which is given over to theological speculation; and even in regard to doctrines that have been infallibly defined there is always room for further inquiry so as the better to understand, explain, defend, and expand them. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580x.htm
“BK, context again; my charge was that there is no infallible list of all infallible teachings”
There’s more then enough to read through the afternoon on what I provided.
“to which you asserted there was”
I asserted that there was a list, not that said list was, in itself, infalliable.
You distinctly responded to my assertion that there is no infallible list by asserting that there actually was, in your commitment to defend Rome:
there is no infallible list of what all church fathers consist of, or of all infallible pronouncements, not everything is clear as to what is infallible.”
Actually, there is a list. And no, Perpetual Virginity is not on it.
I distinctly denied there was no “fish” and you asserted there was, and offered me a “stone” — which you did not even have yet, without any explanation that it was not an infallible list being referred to, until challenged later. If there is no infallible list then your reply was misleading, or due to not reading carefully, despite the distinct statement.
Nor could it be. If there was an infalliable list of infalliable teachings, then it would contradict the teaching that the Pope can speak ex-cathedra. Becuase the list would take precedent over anything that the Pope would say. No list is complete, ergo no list could be infalliable.
I am sure you know better than this. Obviously what is being asked for is not all infallible statements that ever will be made, but what has been made, which could be infallible even if being an open canon. Moreover, having an infallible list of all infallible teachings to date would neither prevent further ones, nor take any more precedent (if any) over anything that the Pope would say than a minimal verifiable consensus of 2 or 3 which no on denies, has or would now.
“But while that relates to Trent providing the first indisputable infallible canon”
Trent provides the first infalliable declaration of the Canon. The canon itself dates to the late 4th century. Again, this is something we see. Infalliable declarations do not proceed teachings, the teachings follow first and are later (usually much later), declared to be infalliable. The Church had been using this canon from the 4th onward.
But the issue is whether there was an indisputable, settled canon, so that the canon of the Protestants made out of “whole cloth” = “a story invented with no basis in fact; a complete fiction'', thus disallowing that had any support from the past in its exclusion of the apocrypha, or inclusion of its books, which assertion is shown to be false, being refuted and outweighed even by scholars in Trent, which apparently informally first voted 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm them as infallible — an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it., while the all the books of the Protestant canon had ancient support, including the 39 book Hebrew canon (counted as 22) and 27 book N.T, canon.
If your disagreements touch something that I don’t already have prepared, then I have to put it together for you. Most of what you brought up isn’t anything special. This is a good question that takes time to prepare. Plus I have to answer 5 other people. So sorry that you had to wait.
Getting redundant, little more to be said. Best to move on.
“Are are you going to get the pope to convene an ecumenical council and provide one?”
Again, I demonstrated why an infalliable list contradicts infalliability.
You may see so but you demonstrated nothing except the ability to ignore specification on one hand while making it into an unreason-able request on the other, which enables it to be denied:
“trying to provide a non-infallible list, which only confirms my statement that there is none”
Any list provided would be wholly correct, yet it could not be infalliable simply because there are teachings known today that while they are not infalliable, may become so later.
Again, an infallible list — incapable of being in error — of all infallible statements to date would not prevent further ones from being added. Do you really think i am asking for a list of all infallible decrees that ever will be made? (You infer you are something of a teacher, but not a prophet.) That is an unreasonable misrepresentation.
“The burden is more on proving it is not a close relationship”
Can’t prove a negative. Lacking sufficient evidence, we cannot conclude a close relationship between the two.
Once again you continue to construe the argument to be that of proof rather than probability, while what cannot be proven/concluded due to lack of sufficient evidence is the positive that the texts at issue refer to family in the larger sense, though that in context the,
“Here you have Jesus brothers and sisters along with his own literal mother being referred to, while speaking in His own literal country in the narrow sense, that of Nazareth, and referring to His own house[oikia, rarely used in larger sense]. All these can be used in the larger or the spiritual sense, none of which is disallowed, but most natural reading is that of His own family and household.”
An English Protestant commentates on a Greek Catholic book, and concludes that his opinion coincides with the ‘most natural reading’, not by consulting the Greek, but rather, citing the english.
Rather, an English Protestant comments on a Greek Catholic book by examining the Greek which the Catholic contentiously focuses on as determinative, but which itself is inconclusive and so he looks at the context of a number of verses as to which is most determinative of the meaning.
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Adelphoi is used to refer to the brethren of Christ. Same book, same author. Yet here we are to conclude that it has the special meaning of stating that they are biological brothers? No. Families, back then, are not what we consider families to be today.
Sorry, it doesn’t work only your way. The same word used for the brethren of Christ is also used to refer to actual siblings a number of times, including along with the mention of a parent, (Mt. 4:21) as it does in describing brethren of Christ. (Mt. 12:46 ) Same book, same author, and context mainly determines meaning here. Yet we are to conclude that it must only have the meaning of being cousins? I allow that it can, but thou doth protest more than is warranted.
“Which means nothing when you are attempt to show warrant for submission to the pope, and in which case reasons are not needed.”
You quote everyone but the Pope. Why is that? If I want to understand what the Catholic church teaches, why would I selectively cite people other than him?
Why? What would quoting what the pope said on the P-V of Mary serve as to the issue, as it is not what the pope claims but warrant for it, for which scholarship is invoked, and your reliance and preoccupation upon what the pope “infallibly “ claims as if he were God is the real issue.
And as he can require assent of faith to his words as being assured infallible, even without manifesting the signs of an apostle, (2Cor. 12:12) then he find this fitting:
“..We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty...” — Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publica” June 20, 1894 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm) “Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law;” — PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, (On the Study of Holy Scripture), Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, dated November 18th, 1893.
“That is my point, which you are missing, that assurance of truth for the Roman Catholic rests upon what the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) says, even though that is quite limited.”
One person does not equate with the infalliable magisterium, with the exception of the Pope.
And thus assurance of truth for the Roman Catholic rests upon what the assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) says, corporately or the pope himself. As said.
“And in response, i may invoke approved Catholic works as having more weight than you, and writings from Catholics based upon their merits, and as not being biased against Rome”
Again, you keep missing the point. What one Catholic author writes is not indication that this is what the magisterium teaches. You could cite the Catechism, but you seem strangely adverse to doing so.
What you seem strangely adverse to doing so is looking at context and following the argument and understanding the point, which here was in regards to quoting Catholic authors on the Assumption having late and wanting support, and the real basis for why Roman Catholics believing something, and quoting the CCC or a pope here is only going give a statement on what Roman Catholics are to believe.
“Truth then you need not find sanction for it by such reason as you used in coming to submit to Rome, but only need to give assent.”
To convert you need to give assent, for everything that the Church teaches, and to commit to defending what the Church teaches. So this objection falls. Assent is not sufficient. You have to demonstrate understanding of what the Church teaches.
Once again you ignore context, even after being corrected here already. I already explained how the author...,
|
“is not referring to reason in defending the faith, or totally negating any need for reason, but reasons that if Rome states something as Truth then you need not find sanction for it by such reason as you used in coming to submit to Rome, but only need to give assent. That he obviously does not exclude the use of reason in defending the faith is seen by the author himself engaging in such, though this was not seen as the work of laymen.” |
“This is about negating the need of fallible human reason to determine doctrinal truth rather than relying on Rome to do so”
This begs the question. A convert must first be convinced that magisterial infalliability is in fact TRUE before they would be willing to concede that they teach doctrinal truth.
If you paid attestation to the qualification (“Once he does [enter the Roman church] then..”) of the original statement, or actually went to the source which had a link, then you could have seen that it was not in reference to coming to faith in Rome, for which the author affirms the use of investigative reason, or defending the faith, which he is doing using reason, but that of determining justification for what Rome teaches as a condition for your belief, and while in Rome he will know truths he could not have known by reason alone. (Or so he comforts himself.) In that context,
Once he does so [enter the Roman church], he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door.
Therein he will learn many other truths that he never could have found out with reason alone, truths superior, but not contrary, to reason.
Again, a convert must be convinced through reason that the Church is correct. Arguing that they ‘dump their reason’ when converting to the Church, and ‘find their reason’ when they convert away from the Church are baseless.
That is not the argument of the apologist, seen if you examined his work a little, but as already explained,
|
His scope is limited, as evidently your reading is, as he does sanction reason being employed as regards converting to Rome, and his freedom from reason remarks as are regards finding merit for what Rome authoritatively teaches, and consistently seeking after truth rather than being convinced that he holds it. “The message of the Church is: these are God's words. As for what these words stand for, you are not to trust her, but Him. The foundation of divine belief is one thing; the motives of credibility are another.” (cp. XVIII) His position that a Catholic need not use reason to find warrant for what has Rome authoritatively teaches has evident merit, as you can indeed leave such reason at the door as regards seeking the basis for your belief in such things as the Assumption, for certitude rests upon papal decree that it is so. |
The latter issue was the context of my quote by him. And as your CCC will show you, “Motives of credibility” refers to reasons for faith, (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind". (156)
The basis for the infallible claim of Rome
“required implicit assent of faith to an office of men based upon the premise of assured infallibility.”
Again, we go back to Matthew. The Church argues that the Church has the authority, because of Apostolic succession and the authority given to Peter. It does not argue that the source of infalliability stems from itself, but from Christ.
Again, we go back to why one interpretation of Matthew is authoritative over the rest, which is because Rome defines herself as possessing assured infallibility, and invokes this to support her.
First page of the catechism on infalliability. You really should read the Catechism.
Why? Again the issue is not what Rome states, but what she effectively teaches. And I have lots of official material from Rome, but you need to read why it is challenged, rather than presenting CCC assertions as arguments, or supposing that assurance of doctrine for a Roman Catholic rests upon conclusive evidence from Scripture, as if they held to SS.
“Refuted before. As expressed before, your reasoning is superficial, for as said, Rome can claim she has warrant from Scripture, or at least is not contradicting it, but that is not the basis for assurance that she has spoken infallibly.”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I keep returning back to Matthew. The premise of Infalliability derives from the promises of Christ to Peter. Arguing otherwise, simply ignores what the Church truly teaches. Read the Catechism.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. While this is what you are taught, that is superficial and in error. That interpretation of Matthew has no authority unless Rome says it does. We cannot even have assurance of doctrine except by submission to Rome. And as said, assurance of the infallibility of Rome's infallible decrees is not and cannot be dependent upon conclusive evidence from Scripture, else they be Protestant and hold that Scripture is supreme. Rather, Rome decides what is Truth, and infallibly defined herself as being infallible when speaking according to her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria, and thus her own decree that she is assured infallible, is infallible, among other decrees. And the catechism implicitly depends upon this premise.
Certainty she must have some basis for her claim, but as Catholics argue, anyone can invoke texts to support themselves, and what makes Rome’s interpretation of Mt. 16 indisputable is her infallible definition of it. If indeed she has infallibly defined it thusly, as it is interpreted that the reasons behind an infallible decrees are not necessarily actually infallible themselves.
...the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached. Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility>True meaning of infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10430a.htm
Cardinal Avery Dulles pointed out in Magisterium (Sapientia, 2007, p. 66): “Strictly speaking, infallibility is a property of the Magisterium in its activity of teaching, not a property of magisterial statements.”
Ludwig Ott: Commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis, that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, said “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” — Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200. ttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm:
Roman Catholic theologian, Johann Mohler: "Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined." [Source: Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism: Exposition of the doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolic Writings, trans James Burton Robertson (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), p.296].
Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/our-faliable-interperation-6035/
And you will not get into this depth out of the CCC, which is why theologians and apologists have other books as well.
A question on the canon
“Once again, we do not follow Luther’s canon”
Does your canon deviate from Luther’s? Yes or no. Who is we and how does your canon deviate from his?
Yes it does deviate from the standard 66 book canon of wholly inspired Scripture commonly historically held by Protestants.
In Luther's prefaces to James, Jude and the Revelation, from the first edition of his New Testament (Luther's Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399) we see he,
rejected James: “I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” though he included them in his translation, which also included the apocrypha.
Thus contrary to your polemic, a Catholic recently vehemently argued against Luther's rejecting James, as if it impugned our faith.
And Revelation: “they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep. .
But Luther's rejection of these does not mean he did not include them in his translation, and thus some may think he held them as inspired Scripture, which he did not, and as he did also did with the apocrypha (in a separate section as in ages past), but this not make them inspired Scripture.
“In terms of order, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation come last in Luther’s New Testament because of his negative estimate of their apostolicity. In a catalogue of “The Books of the New Testament” which followed immediately upon his Preface to the New Testament… Luther regularly listed these four—without numbers—at the bottom of a list in which he named the other twenty-three books, in the order in which they still appear in English Bibles, and numbered them consecutively from 1–23… a procedure identical to that with which he also listed the books of the Apocrypha
Likewise the Apocrypha:
The editors of Luther’s Works explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’
It also should be understood that as with early church fathers, Luther was working his way through his theology and the canonization of Scripture. Also of note is that the words “canon” and “Scripture” could be used less formally sometimes than they would be later on. (And it would not be until the year of Luther's death that Trent presented its finalized canon.) The canon which Protestantism came to hold is that of the ancient 39 book Old Testament and the 27 book New Testament canon. Which, like authoritative Old Testament writings by time of Christ, came to be accepted due to their qualities and other Divine attestation through the consensus of the faithful, without a purportedly infallible conciliar decree. The page to see on Luther's canon is here.
► By what authority doest thou these things
“to those who sat in the seat of Moses as being infallible, rather than the spiritual authority of these upstart followers of the Nazarene being established in dissent from them, in conformity to Scriptural and its means of attestation, to the glory of God.”
Finally. Now we get to a decent argument.
The real basis for authority has been the decent argument along, and much was written to you on this in a recent past exchange, which will only be summed up here
Why do you think Christ told Peter - “I give YOU the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”. He was replacing those who sat in the seat of Moses. If Christ had given his spiritual authority to those who sat in the seat of Moses, then he would not have given the Keys to Peter.
This is exactly right. But why he gave them to Peter was not because Peter had the right formal decent of office, but along with the 10 other true apostles, he had Abrahamic type faith in the Messiah, the Son of God, the spiritual Rock that followed Israel, which the Scriptures promised. “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.“ (Jn. 1:45) And which faith constitutes a true Jew, not lineage. (Rm. 2:28,29)
The Jewish office was not perpetual even though the nation had promises of continuance and had a magisterium which sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2), but God can preserve truth and fulfill such promises by raising up others from with the formal magisterium office to reprove it and replace it if need be. And just as God can raise up stones to be children of Abraham, (Mt. 3:9) so he can raise up stones to continue to build his Church, who like Peter effectually confess Jesus is Lord, the Rock upon which the church is built, and who ordain others after that essential faith.
It is not formal decent which establishes spiritual authority, even though that is a normal confirmation of true man of God, but true men of God, like the writings of Scripture, are such even without confirmation of those whose office should recognize such. The scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses seat but they had a real problem with John the Baptist, whose his Divinely established authority Jesus invoked when challenged as to what authority he did things by. (Mk. 11:28ff) And “for the decision of their Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law... (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees)
And thus Christ who died outside the camp and the upstart Church was established upon rejection by those who supposed a continuance of formal office and based on their interpretation of Scripture, while the means of establishment of the claims of Christ and the apostles was by conformism to Scripture, which they abundantly referenced as the supreme transcendent material authority, and the manner of attestation it reveals truth being given, which the apostles uniquely evidenced more than others. (2Cor. 12:12)
Rome's presumption is like that of the Pharisees, which overall manifests more of an outward form of Godliness and of the Christian church, and though no doubt some simple regenerated souls are therein, most therein do not testify to having experienced manifest regeneration by faith in the word of truth, but the only day of salvation they can point to is when they were sprinkled as infants upon proxy faith, and their expressed hope of salvation is typically largely based on the power of Rome and their own merit .
Outside this form are the majority of believers who are rejected by the priestly Pharisees as having no right to official authority, and while imperfect, including in form, yet they believe the gospel which effects conviction of their damned and destitute state, and which compels true heartfelt repentance and faith, resulting in manifest regeneration. And which happened to me as a Catholic at age 25, though raised devoutly, and then (remaining 6 years therein), i realized the vast difference between institutionalized faith Catholic or Protestant, and that of the church of the living God. And thanks be to God for His enduring mercy.
“In contrast, if Catholic faith depends upon the weight of Scriptural warrant then it makes Catholics to be as Protestants”
The Church came first, and the authority of the Apostles stems from inspiration, not infalliability. Something you would know if you read the Catechism....
And,
neither the “pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)
All God-inspired teaching is infallible, being Divine revelation, but it is held that not all infallible teaching is inspired, but which is only held to be the authentic interpreter of Divine revelation.
However, you cannot be Divinely inspired without being infallible, otherwise Scripture could be in error, and the authority of the apostles depended upon inspired Scripture, while being an instrument and steward of Divine revelation does not make you the assured infallible interpreters of it, or effectively supreme over it, which you would know if you read not the catechism (which you do not even bother to properly reference), but which the Scriptures show.
Scripture cannot contradict tradition, and tradition cannot contradict scripture. Just as God’s blessings in inspiring the Gospel writers is not contradicted by the infalliability of the magisterium in confirming the Canon. I’m snipping the rest. You just keep repeating yourself, ad nauseaum.
Again you are repeating the same refuted arguments, as here, ignoring the fact that mere claims are a poor or argument and not proofs. As said, the claim that Rome's magisterium and the Tradition she channels cannot contradict Scripture rests upon the premise of the assured infallibility of Rome, which she infallibly defines Tradition and Scripture as giving her. She can universally declare doctrine on faith and morals without invoking one text and it would still be considered infallible.
► Back to the Bible
Let me ask you a question daniel?
Do you believe that any of your argument that Catholics are forbidden to read scripture has any appeal to anyone? Really? Do you think that anyone is going to take what you say at face value as applicable to the Church today.
OK, that's it. Why should i need to time and again patiently correcting your seeming knee jerk denials or tendency to ignore explanations, context or words. and resulting in misrepresentations, the latter of which you engage in again here?
On this subject, first you state, Evidence would be nice in response to my assertion that “even the Bible was restricted (and even banned in some places),” completely ignoring the nice blue hot link, and then construe me as saying that you presently cannot go and get a bible and read it anytime I wish? To which i point out that my qualifying word was “was,” yet you still come back and present me as arguing that Catholics are forbidden to read Scripture! Really!
|
and even the Bible was restricted” Evidence would be nice. What do you mean “evidence would be nice” in response to “even the Bible was restricted.” You did this before, resulting in my posting great lengths to any already long post, and evidence that you do not go linked material. Perhaps you do not recognize hot linked words, but when you see an underlined word (usually blue) that makes your cursor turn into a hand, then if you click on it with your mouse it will take you to another page. Are you saying that I cannot go and get a bible and read it anytime I wish? You are gravely mistaken if you believe that is the case. We are encouraged to reflect upon scripture whenever possible. Are you saying that my qualifying word “was” means it is still is? << |
If you actually went to the linked page then you would see that i actually document the modern position that Rome encourages Bible reading (can't beat em, join em).
You did not say that you were providing historical evidence of disciplinary (not doctrinal decrees), limited to some of the laity (and not others), decrees which are no longer in force today.
Come on BK. An objection based on a basic statement and due to your failure to move your finger for the details. What desperate objection will be next? The results of your overly contentious bent is going to end up getting you ignored. I simply said “even the Bible was restricted (and even banned in some places)” — not universally banned or as an immutable law, in which i case i would not have used WAS! — and instead i carefully provided a link for the detailed and balanced substantiation. And in which i quote popes and councils and provide history as both restricting free access to the Bible as well as favoring it.
As for my office, yes I do teach and yes I am of the laity for me to do my work, I have to consult scripture. So if you contend that the Church today holds this to be true, then I’m not sure what to think of you or your experience.
Again, here i also distinctly said that WAS, which means past tense! What kind of permission you would have needed would be relative to your position and prowess.
Sorry to say, but the Church does affirm that Scripture is true, does affirm that Scripture is sufficient (something I don’t see you arguing against anything), argues that Scripture is infalliable, and moreover, argues that you can’t rip out books because you don’t like them.
I am glad, not sorry you say that, but there are two schools on the sufficiency issue in Roman Catholicism, both of which leave Rome as supreme. I will add that Scripture as materially sufficient includes providing for additional writings of this class being added until these ceased, as well providing for the church, which the Old Testament provides for. And even the instruments of its writing were subject to it, and did not always understand what they wrote. (1Pt. 1:11; 2Pt. cf. 1:20,21)
Frankly, the Church respects Sacred Scripture more than anybody else.
The devil also greatly respects Sacred Scripture for its power to expose him and degrade his rule, and if not working to restrict free access to Scripture, he raises up those who presume an anointing which makes them worthy of requiring implicit assent as effectively supreme over Scripture, or to degrade the Scriptures to being much that of folk tales and fables and the work of later editorialists. Cults work the former and liberals the latter, and Rome works both. And despite lofty pronouncements, the practical effect of her Roman-intensive ethos is to overall produce relative lethargy in reading Scripture, compared with her evangelical counterpart.
The END.
A good short read, even if a little dry.
“Do you really think i am asking for a list of all infallible decrees that ever will be made?”
Not at all. You can’t add anything to an infalliable doctrine. It cannot be changed in any way shape or form.
Ergo, it is a consequence of said ‘infalliable list’, that it would be complete. I am not arguing that you are requesting this, I am merely arguing that this is the unintended consequence of making such a list infalliable.
Good job, daniel.
If that’s the best answer you got, you provided nothing they could refute so they resort to accusing you of lying.
“Do you really think i am asking for a list of all infallible decrees that ever will be made?”
Not at all.
That is worse, for then you must have understood what i denied (that an infallible list exists), and yet responded, “Actually, there is a list,” when all you could come up with was an attempt at a homemade list, which i could have quickly gotten in a couple minutes or so online.
You can’t add anything to an infalliable doctrine. It cannot be changed in any way shape or form.
Now are making a list out to be a doctrinal teaching that itself cannot be changed, such as what constitutes an infallible statement, but instead an irreformable list would be the product of the doctrine of infallibility. And again, there is nothing in principle which would prevent the infallible magisterium from providing a list that cannot be in error, being understood as simply assuring its list is only that of all infallible teachings to present.
And i see your interpretation of that here as unique, as i have never seen any Roman Catholic apologists who also have dealt with that question come up with that as a reason. A technical response is that the agent or a process of such would be infallible while the product is inerrant or irreformable, but it amounts to the same thing.
I’m a bit busy tonight. I’ll take a look at the rest of what you posted before when I get a chance. Apologies.
A list exists of what is considered infalliable, but the list itself is not considered to be infalliable.
“And again, there is nothing in principle which would prevent the infallible magisterium from providing a list that cannot be in error”
Whether something is in error, and something is infalliable, are two very, very different things. Absolutely, I can supply you a list (as I have), which is not in error. But the list is not infalliable.
I’m not sure why you are conflating the two. A valid teaching!= infalliable teaching.
“A technical response is that the agent or a process of such would be infallible while the product is inerrant or irreformable, but it amounts to the same thing.”
You can’t add books to scripture for the same reason. Until Trent, it was possible for the canon to change, but afterwards, it’s set. No new books may be added.
What thou sayest is true
metmom: “they resort to accusing you of lying” —> now stop trying to make all threads personal. it’s against Forum rules
It came in very very late in the game, and was wide and to the left. Some negative comments are better seen as commendations, and as disparaging the side that gave them.
A list exists of what is considered infalliable, but the list itself is not considered to be infalliable.
Which kind of list was not the subject when you affirmed one existed.
“And again, there is nothing in principle which would prevent the infallible magisterium from providing a list that cannot be in error”
Whether something is in error, and something is infalliable, are two very, very different things. Absolutely, I can supply you a list (as I have), which is not in error. But the list is not infalliable.
I’m not sure why you are conflating the two. A valid teaching!= infalliable teaching.
From the outset I did not simply refer to a “valid” teaching not existing, nor of a list of some infallible pronouncements, but “an infallible list of what all church fathers consist of, or of all infallible pronouncements,” obviously to up to the present, while it is evidenced that your affirmation that an actual list existed was in regards to an infallible list, in which i meant being assuredly true, being “exempt from the possibility of error” as infallibility definitions are.
Taking this from the beginning, in reference to the perpetually virginity of Mary, you said
No, and nor has it been infalliably affirmed.
But it is defended as if it were infallible, while as there is no infallible list of what all church fathers consist of, or of all infallible pronouncements, not everything is clear as to what is infallible.
[Thus we are both referring to infallible statements which provide full certitude. To which you next responded]
Actually, there is a list. And no, Perpetual Virginity is not on it. It is defended as dogma - official teachings of the church, but not as infalliable dogma, as her assumption is.
[Here in the context of an infallible list you assert there is a list, without any substantiation (per usual), while, your exclusion of PV from that list as it is not infallible as the Assumption evidences that the list being referred to was one that was infallible in that sense. If there was still a question about what manner of list then here would have been the place to state that, or clarify what kind of list existed. Thus any real ambiguity was more on your part, not mine. And i responded,]
It is necessary to provide substantiation for such statements, and if you could provide an infallible list of all the church fathers, and of all infallible pronouncements, then that would be outstanding.
1, doesn’t exist because no Church Father is infalliable as an individual. As a collective, yes.
[2.] Infalliable pronouncements would take some time.
[Had i not challenge that an infallible listed existed, that would have been that one such did exist would have been your import. But when challenged to provide the list you begin to try to deny it based on technical grounds, which confirms that you understood what manner of list was at issue.
And to be technical, your objection is unclear and unsubstantiated (per usual) as to what makes it so, and provides no manifest reason that would prevent a list being given after the manner that any infallible definition is. And while the pope cannot be without the Roman church (or vice versa), according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, papal “ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.”
My next response was,]
BK, you said there was an infallible list, but where is it? One on who all the CFs consist of is also needed. And it is not unanimity that makes CFs infallible, but Rome's decree that they were, and its definition of unanimous consent.
To which you responded,:
As I said there is a list. It will take time for me to put it together for you. :) I don’t have it ready at the go right now, but I will in a bit.
[Thus even the list you said existed, besides not being infallible, did not exist yet but had to be compiled!
I responded,]
Either an infallible list of all infallible teachings, as well as a complete list of all the CFs exists, to or it does not.
[To which you again plead technicalities,]
Again, I demonstrated why an infalliable list contradicts infalliability. Any list provided would be wholly correct, yet it could not be infalliable simply because there are teachings known today that while they are not infalliable, may become so later.
[but which you should have stated in the beginning, rather that say as regards the list, which would have included the PV if it was infallible, “Actually, there is a list.” As regards the objection itself, i did wrongly assume you were referring to adding future pronouncements, while as for prior ones later becoming infallible later, i see that as technically wrong, as either they were infallible when given to they were not. There may be some “infallible” ones existing that later could be recognized as such, but that is a reason for having as infallible list of all to date, rather than this being a matter of interpretation as to there are and which ones are, among Catholic as well as others. (http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf)
Coming to the latest exchange, i said
“And again, there is nothing in principle which would prevent the infallible magisterium from providing a list that cannot be in error”
to which you state
Whether something is in error, and something is infalliable, are two very, very different things. Absolutely, I can supply you a list (as I have), which is not in error. But the list is not infalliable.
Here, besides using my minimal “cannot be in error” rendering rather than the fuller denotation originally understood by us, you assert that you absolutely can and have supplied a list which is not in error, yet even that list must fall short, as it cannot be a list of all infallible pronouncements to date which is not in error without competing with others, which depends upon judgment of what is de fide. (http://ericsammons.com/blog/2009/04/29/infallible-list-of-infallible-teachings/) Roman Catholic apologists even differ on how many “ex cathedra” statements there are.
► Besides other things the above reveals, as regards the precise contention that an infallible list of all infallible pronouncements to date — a criteria you later indicated confirmed you understood — cannot exist because more (from now extant teachings) could be added to that list, or “because no Church Father is infallible as an individual,” or that BK can supply a list which is not in error, any other reasons, i have pinged a learned Roman Catholic i have sometimes debated (and whose typical de-meanor is not as his screen name), to comment oh this if he wants to. Other reasonable posters may as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.