Replies

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

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.