“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.
“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.