Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[IcyChain]

A great example of Christ doing that very thing is found in Mark 7 - (which I see you still refuse to quote or discuss.. How "instructive" for the objective unbiased readers)

What exactly would you like me to say about the verse?

It is the word of the Lord. Praise be to God.

This is where you would have needed to show Christ condemning his sola scriptura testing example in Mark 7 or where Luke condemned the "sola scriptura test" in Acts 17:11 that you are also still skimming past.

It’s pretty amusing that you keep trying to drag me into a Sola Scriptura debate.

Let it go my man. Let it go. I’m sure there will be plenty of other people who will debate that with you in the future and you can get your fix.

Why not make a compelling case for the assertions you suggest?

It’s already been made, and all the information that you need to understand the truth is readily available to you. You just refuse to believe it and you will continue to refuse to believe it after we have a 50 page debate over it. That’s cool but I’d rather spend that time on other things.

 

[IcyChain]

No it isn't. You asked me if I thought we did, not if we could. Of course anyone could. That's the point. That's why we don't have this idea of infallibility in the first place. Because no one in the Church is infallible, anyone could start going off on an erroneous path. We've had more than enough people thrown out of the Church over the centuries to prove this. I gave the most recent, highest-profile example I know of in my first post in this thread, so I don't know why you are insisting that our ecclesiology is somehow just RCC ecclesiology, but in disguise. That's just silly and incorrect.



What on earth are you talking about? You asked me if I thought that my Church had any particular erroneous doctrines and I said no. The rest of this appears to be you getting worked up about things I never said. What a strange way to approach a conversation with someone you've never conversed with before!

More semantics. Look, I already indicated that you will not admit that you believe your church is incapable of teaching error (as a corporate body). It’s just a minor coincidence that your church has been around for 2000 years and has no error. It was a minor stroke of luck!

A church that has been in existence for 2000 years, has no error, but is not infallible. Give me a break. Smoke and mirrors pal. I don’t buy that. Too bad.

As for me getting “worked up” - is what I wrote true or false? Are the churches that disagree with what your church teaches correct, or incorrect?

 

[JSRG]

First of all, we are in conformity with the more general Orthodox opinion (I believe also shared by the Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonians, even) that the 'rock' spoken of by Christ was a description of St. Peter's faith, not a promise made to St. Peter himself. I have heard my own priest talk about this over the Agape meal, on a few different occasions.

Second of all, nothing that you have presented above implies infallibility to anyone who doesn't have to defend the doctrine of Papal infallibility in the first place, so don't try to drag my Church into your Church's mess, thank you. We do not share in your ecclesiology, as I just explained a little bit ago to the other guy who asked about the Coptic Orthodox Church. Saying "We do not believe that we teach anything erroneous" is not the same as claiming "We are divinely protected from having any errant leadership." Consider this: the same St. Peter to whom Christ addressed the words in your first quote would famously go on to deny Jesus three times before His crucifixion. Where was his 'infallibility' then? Or is denying Christ somehow not a matter of faith and morals?

It seems fairly obvious to me that Peter's actions there, if he had been given any sort of papal infallibility at the point (I'm not sure, theologically, when it's considered by Catholicism to have been granted---Matthew 16 and John 21 would make the most sense), wouldn't fall under the defined definition. Here is how Vatican I defines it (bolding original in the link):

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  
  • that is, when,
  • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
  • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
  • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
• he possesses,
  
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

I don't think saying "I don't know the man!" to a few people due to fear can be considered in any way to fit the above requirements. Even if one wishes to consider it "doctrine", he clearly wasn't saying anything he intended to be held by the whole church.

 

[dzheremi]

More semantics. Look, I already indicated that you will not admit that you believe your church is incapable of teaching error (as a corporate body). It’s just a minor coincidence that your church has been around for 2000 years and has no error. It was a minor stroke of luck!

What? That's not what I said at all. It's not a 'coincidence' or 'a minor stroke of luck' -- it's deliberately sticking to the faith as established in the three ecumenical councils that we recognize, and shunning later innovations.

A church that has been in existence for 2000 years, has no error, but is not infallible. Give me a break. Smoke and mirrors pal. I don’t buy that. Too bad.

I don't care what you buy or don't buy. You asked questions, I answered. Take it as you wish.

As for me getting “worked up” - is what I wrote true or false? Are the churches that disagree with what your church teaches correct, or incorrect?

What about other churches being wrong necessitates anything like Papal infallibility? Oh, that's right: Nothing. That's why your attempt to shoehorn Orthodox ecclesiology into the Roman Catholic model doesn't work.

I totally understand why you would see these things as 'semantics', since after all the RCC loves proceeding in everything it has done in the ecumenical sphere since Vatican II with the idea that we (Catholics and Orthodox) believe basically the same things, but that's not really true. In your communion, no one can say that the Pope may be a heretic and hence may have to be deposed against his will, since that ruins this whole idea of Papal infallibility, whereas in mine, anyone who would propose that the Pope even could be infallible would be rejected on that account. So they're actually diametrically opposed ideas, and it takes not caring at all about the details of what anyone outside of your Church believes to insist that this fact is mere 'semantics'.

 

[dzheremi]

It seems fairly obvious to me that Peter's actions there, if he had been given any sort of papal infallibility at the point (I'm not sure, theologically, when it's considered by Catholicism to have been granted---Matthew 16 and John 21 would make the most sense), wouldn't fall under the defined definition. Here is how Vatican I defines it (bolding original in the link):

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  
  • that is, when,
    
    1. • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
       • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
       • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
• he possesses,
  
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

I don't think saying "I don't know the man!" to a few people due to fear can be considered in any way to fit the above requirements. Even if one wishes to consider it "doctrine", he clearly wasn't saying anything he intended to be held by the whole church.

I would care about this a lot more if Roman Catholics could produce a list of infallible statements that they all agree meet this criteria, hence showing that any of this has any real existence in the world. Since I know already that they can't (there are such lists floating around here and there, but they're not agreed upon by the faithful), it's not actually this great protection for their Church that they think it is. In practice, it just gives them one more thing to argue over while the rest of the world keeps spinning, without a care as to their claims.

 

[IcyChain]

What? That's not what I said at all. It's not a 'coincidence' or 'a minor stroke of luck' -- it's deliberately sticking to the faith as established in the three ecumenical councils that we recognize, and shunning later innovations.



I don't care what you buy or don't buy. You asked questions, I answered. Take it as you wish.



What about other churches being wrong necessitates anything like Papal infallibility? Oh, that's right: Nothing. That's why your attempt to shoehorn Orthodox ecclesiology into the Roman Catholic model doesn't work.

I totally understand why you would see these things as 'semantics', since after all the RCC loves proceeding in everything it has done in the ecumenical sphere since Vatican II with the idea that we (Catholics and Orthodox) believe basically the same things, but that's not really true. In your communion, no one can say that the Pope may be a heretic and hence may have to be deposed against his will, since that ruins this whole idea of Papal infallibility, whereas in mine, anyone who would propose that the Pope even could be infallible would be rejected on that account. So they're actually diametrically opposed ideas, and it takes not caring at all about the details of what anyone outside of your Church believes to insist that this fact is mere 'semantics'.

Bro of course you don’t believe that any particular individual is infallible. Obviously y’all don’t believe that. My contention is that you, for all practical purposes, hold that your church is infallible as a corporate body.

As far as your church being error free after 2000 years because of “deliberately holding to the faith” and all of that jazz - well I’ve already given my opinion on that. You disagree, which is totally fine by me.

Let me ask you this, are the three ecumenical councils, which apparently comprise everything that your church teaches, capable of containing error?

 

[BobRyan]

Some people fully embrace the sola-scriptura method of testing of all tradition,doctrine and practice that Christ uses in Mark 7 -- others reject it.

Mark 7:7-12

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:​

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’​

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”​

9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.​

​

10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’​

​

11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,​

​

13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”​

​

​

What exactly would you like me to say about the verse?

1. whether it shows the very sola scriptura testing that you reject - or not
2. Whether you think Christ is making a mistake to rely on that sola-scriptura method of testing tradition/doctrine/teaching
3. If you eventually came to reject it - how did that happen in your case?

It is the word of the Lord. Praise be to God.

IT is scripture showing how tradition was slam-hammered using the Word of God - sola-scriptura tested and that tradition fell flat.
So clear that Christ's audience could easily "get the point".

It’s pretty amusing that you keep trying to drag me into a Sola Scriptura debate.

Actually you are the one that came out in full opposition to this Bible teaching. I simply pointed out that it is your own protesting-catholics that also strongly affirmed this teaching of scripture.

Let it go my man. Let it go.

How "insightful"

Your treatment of the text is as I had expected so I guess I can't say "how surprising".

in any case - you have free will - you can ignore whatever you wish as you find it necessary. I do not object.

 

[BobRyan]

Clearly that is no dogma.

It was an ecumenical council's Canon Law that got 10's of thousands of Christians killed.
Is it your claim that Canon law of ecumencal Catholic councils are fallible.?

Given that no Pope in history made any statement of the form "I pronounce this to be spoken ex cathedra" and given that you now admit to horrendous error in the canon law of ecumenical councils - what exactly are you affirming to be infallible???

 

[Valletta]

2 Thessalonians 2:15​

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. RSVCE

The Bible makes it clear, we are to stand by the sacred traditions taught by Jesus and passed down through the Apostles.

 

[IcyChain]

1. whether it shows the very sola scriptura testing that you reject - or not
2. Whether you think Christ is making a mistake to rely on that sola-scriptura method of testing tradition/doctrine/teaching
3. If you eventually came to reject it - how did that happen in your case?

1. I would say that when it is possible, traditions should be tested against Sacred Scripture, and that any traditions that contradict Sacred Scripture should be rejected. This is what we see in Mark 7. Our Lord tested the traditions of the Pharisees against Sacred Scripture, and rejected that tradition because it contradicted Sacred Scripture.

2. Our Lord Jesus has never made any mistake. I think that is a rather silly, and frankly, insulting, question for one Christian to ask another Christian.

3. I would need you to offer a precise definition of "sola scriptura testing" in order to inform you of whether I accept or reject it. If you define "sola scriptura testing" to mean that "tradition should be tested against Sacred Scripture, and that any traditions that contradict Sacred Scripture should be rejected" then I accept it. If by "sola scripture testing" you have some other pet definition in mind, please tell me what it is and perhaps I can offer you my opinion on it.

Actually you are the one that came out in full opposition to this Bible teaching. I simply pointed out that it is your own protesting-catholics that also strongly affirmed this teaching of scripture.

The Bible does not teach the traditional Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Now, if you want to play the "that is not what Sola Scriptura means, this is what Sola Scriptura REALLY means" game, please provide your pet definition of Sola Scriptura and then perhaps I can tell you whether I accept or reject your pet definition. One of the reasons why I loathe these Sola Scriptura arguments with Protestants is because there are a billion different Protestants and 500 million of them has his own pet definition about what Sola Scriptura "really" means. So until you provide the precise definition of Sola Scriptura that you assert as the "real" meaning of Sola Scriptura, further conversation with respect to the matter is rather pointless.

 

[Valletta]

1. I would say that when it is possible, traditions should be tested against Sacred Scripture, and that any traditions that contradict Sacred Scripture should be rejected.

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, all text was tested against the Sacred Tradition that was passed down from Jesus through the Apostles--the Word of God. Any text that was in contradiction to Catholic teaching was rejected.

 

[IcyChain]

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, all text was tested against the Sacred Tradition that was passed down from Jesus through the Apostles--the Word of God. Any text that was in contradiction to Catholic teaching was rejected.

I don’t necessarily disagree but I’m not sure if I would exactly put it that way. I view the canon ultimately as part of the deposit of faith that was divinely revealed to the apostles and passed down to their successors over time, not simply as the result of an analytical inquiry conducted by the Church in the 4th century. I view it as something akin to our understanding of the Trinity. The revelation occurred during the time of the apostles but took some number of years for the church to fully discern the revelation. I could be wrong on that however, would need to think about that a bit more.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is it your claim that Canon law of ecumencal Catholic councils are fallible.?

yes, all canon law is fallible.

 

[dzheremi]

Let me ask you this, are the three ecumenical councils, which apparently comprise everything that your church teaches, capable of containing error?

I would hope that you don't think they contain error, since your Church holds to these same three councils. On a more basic level, a council being thought of as ecumenical (that is, binding upon the whole ecumene, or inhabited world) is not some sort of magic that prevents it from embracing error, as Chalcedon most certainly shows for the ~90 million of us in churches that rejected and continue to reject it. I'm sure the Nestorians would say the same about Ephesus even though we both agree with and follow it, just as the Eastern Orthodox say about all the RC-only councils that are binding upon you, and your Church no doubt says about any Protestant-held assemblies that function in a manner similar to councils for the churches that hold to them.

I don't know why you continue to harp on the same question in different forms, though.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I don't know why you continue to harp on the same question in different forms, though.

That would be because your posts contain a functional confession of infallibility while at the same time denying that you believe in conciliar infallibility. It's because your posts play a word game where unvarying adherence to truth is not admitted as infallibility. Fundamentally it is because your posts present unerring truth as lacking the chrism of infallibility while your Catholic brethren embrace unerring truth as infallibility.

 

[dzheremi]

That would be because your posts contain a functional confession of infallibility while at the same time denying that you believe in conciliar infallibility.

Because I don't believe that councils are, in themselves, infallible. Again, if they were by some a priori idea of their nature (rather than by containing an elucidation of the true faith, as we maintain that Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus do, but others may not), Chalcedon would not have gone the way it did, with the rest of the churches accepting the Tome of Leo as Orthodox when it isn't.

It's because your posts play a word game where unvarying adherence to truth is not admitted as infallibility.

Because it isn't. No one needs to be infallible to accept the Orthodox faith, or to hold to it.

Fundamentally it is because your posts present unerring truth as lacking the chrism of infallibility while your Catholic brethren embrace unerring truth as infallibility.

Catholics and Orthodox are not the same, so it can't be a surprise that I maintain that it doesn't matter at all what Catholics would rather believe in. I do not submit that you must cease believing in Papal infallibility, only point out how faulty it is to try to shoehorn Orthodox ecclesiology into RC ecclesiology (as your coreligionist IcyChain had been trying to do) just because you guys apparently can't conceive of a Church that doesn't need it in order to function. It's just like how you guys can't conceive of the Church functioning without a Pope, but for us, we had already had a dozen bishops in the seat of St. Mark before any bishop was honored as "Pope" by anyone, so it's not a matter of "how might the Church function", since we can point to 200+ years where it actually functioned like that, far away from whatever theory your own Church developed in its history about how things must function.

 

[IcyChain]

Because I don't believe that councils are, in themselves, infallible. Again, if they were by some a priori idea of their nature (rather than by containing an elucidation of the true faith, as we maintain that Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus do, but others may not), Chalcedon would not have gone the way it did, with the rest of the churches accepting the Tome of Leo as Orthodox when it isn't.



Because it isn't. No one needs to be infallible to accept the Orthodox faith, or to hold to it.



Catholics and Orthodox are not the same, so it can't be a surprise that I maintain that it doesn't matter at all what Catholics would rather believe in. I do not submit that you must cease believing in Papal infallibility, only point out how faulty it is to try to shoehorn Orthodox ecclesiology into RC ecclesiology (as your coreligionist IcyChain had been trying to do) just because you guys apparently can't conceive of a Church that doesn't need it in order to function. It's just like how you guys can't conceive of the Church functioning without a Pope, but for us, we had already had a dozen bishops in the seat of St. Mark before any bishop was honored as "Pope" by anyone, so it's not a matter of "how might the Church function", since we can point to 200+ years where it actually functioned like that, far away from whatever theory your own Church developed in its history about how things must function.

I initially asked you whether your church teaches error.

You answered no.

Would you like to revise your answer? How about “I do not know if my church teaches error?”

The truth is that you do not know whether your church teaches error because you believe that the 3 councils on which its teachings are based may contain error, correct?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Catholics and Orthodox are not the same, so it can't be a surprise that I maintain that it doesn't matter at all what Catholics would rather believe in. I do not submit that you must cease believing in Papal infallibility, only point out how faulty it is to try to shoehorn Orthodox ecclesiology into RC ecclesiology

I accept that OO and EO are in schism from the Catholic Church so I do not expect agreement as long as the schism persists.

 

[IcyChain]

Because I don't believe that councils are, in themselves, infallible. Again, if they were by some a priori idea of their nature (rather than by containing an elucidation of the true faith, as we maintain that Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus do, but others may not), Chalcedon would not have gone the way it did, with the rest of the churches accepting the Tome of Leo as Orthodox when it isn't.



Because it isn't. No one needs to be infallible to accept the Orthodox faith, or to hold to it.



Catholics and Orthodox are not the same, so it can't be a surprise that I maintain that it doesn't matter at all what Catholics would rather believe in. I do not submit that you must cease believing in Papal infallibility, only point out how faulty it is to try to shoehorn Orthodox ecclesiology into RC ecclesiology (as your coreligionist IcyChain had been trying to do) just because you guys apparently can't conceive of a Church that doesn't need it in order to function. It's just like how you guys can't conceive of the Church functioning without a Pope, but for us, we had already had a dozen bishops in the seat of St. Mark before any bishop was honored as "Pope" by anyone, so it's not a matter of "how might the Church function", since we can point to 200+ years where it actually functioned like that, far away from whatever theory your own Church developed in its history about how things must function.

You keep accusing me of trying to equate Roman Catholic theology with the theology of your church, but I already clarified that your church does not have a doctrine like papal infallibility.

To clarify, no, your church does not have an exact equivalent of Catholic theology, but it may have the doctrine of infallibility, as many other churches do. You are starting to seem not to even know what your own church teaches, by first claiming that your church has no error, and then indicating that it’s councils may have error.

Many non-Catholic denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans have forms of infallibility, although they place it in the ecumenical councils or in the church as a corporate body, as I already explained. Apparently you never got the memo on that but it is explained on Wikipedia. Just Google “Infallibility of the Church” and read the article.

 

[dzheremi]

I initially asked you whether your church teaches error.

You answered no.

Would you like to revise your answer? How about “I do not know if my church teaches error?”

The truth is that you do not know whether your church teaches error because you believe that the 3 councils on which its teachings are based may contain error, correct?

No, incorrect. I already explained what I believe in this very post that you are responding to (emphasis added this time, since you are asking questions that tell me that you didn't catch this the first time around): I don't believe that councils are, in themselves, infallible. Again, if they were by some a priori idea of their nature (rather than by containing an elucidation of the true faith, as we maintain that Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus do, but others may not), Chalcedon would not have gone the way it did, with the rest of the churches accepting the Tome of Leo as Orthodox when it isn't.