Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[IcyChain]

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.

Are Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus infallible?

Yes, or no?

 

[dzheremi]

Are Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus infallible?

Yes, or no?

I don't know how much clearer I can be. They have taught the true faith, and that's the only thing that matters as concerns why we accept them -- with no infallibility needed or implied by me.

 

[IcyChain]

I don't know how much clearer I can be. They have taught the true faith, and that's the only thing that matters as concerns why we accept them -- with no infallibility needed or implied by me.

You can be more clear by answering the question with “yes” or “no”.

Which is it?

 

[dzheremi]

You can be more clear by answering the question with “yes” or “no”.

Which is it?

I already answered this, and even bolded the answer in my subsequent reply: councils are not in themselves infallible. They either teach rightly or they don't, just as is the case with any individual church, bishop, etc. I mean, there is a reason why HH St. Theophilos repented of his participation in the Synod of the Oak (403), and we do not consider that to be a council to which we are bound, just for one example.

I don't think this stance is unclear in the slightest. Just because I'm not playing your game whereby we have to say that something is infallible for it to not contain error doesn't mean that I believe that the councils to which we assent somehow contain error, or the Church itself somehow contains error. This is why I've said that you are trying to shoehorn Orthodox ecclesiology into the Roman Catholic model: You apparently need to have these proclamations about everything, whereby you can put it in category A or category B with regard to your Church's (not mine) idea of how the Church functions. You can do that 'til the cows come home for all I care, just don't mischaracterize or get mad about my responses because I won't play along since that entire model of how the Church functions is foreign to me. It's unorthodox.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You can be more clear by answering the question with “yes” or “no”.

Which is it?

The discussion has degenerated too far for genuine candour because your interlocutor does not regard infallibility as being the same thing as being "always true". The Oecumenical councils that are regarded as Oecumenical by the Catholic Church are reliably true, all of their dogmatic and moral pronouncements are true and reliable and ought to be accepted by the faithful. I call that infallible, your interlocutor does not, he has some other definition of infallibility so in effect we're not speaking the same language; it is like the Greek Vs Latin disputes that led to and followed the great schism. It looks like OO language differs both from Greek and Latin and has created a schism that has lasted 600 years longer than the one between EO and Catholics.

---

The term infallible is used in theology to describe the idea that certain religious teachings are incapable of being wrong. In the Catholic Church, infallibility is the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals 1 2. In Protestantism, biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice is wholly useful and true 3.
I hope this helps!

 

[IcyChain]

I already answered this, and even bolded the answer in my subsequent reply: councils are not in themselves infallible. They either teach rightly or they don't, just as is the case with any individual church, bishop, etc. I mean, there is a reason why HH St. Theophilos repented of his participation in the Synod of the Oak (403), and we do not consider that to be a council to which we are bound, just for one example.

I don't think this stance is unclear in the slightest. Just because I'm not playing your game whereby we have to say that something is infallible for it to not contain error doesn't mean that I believe that the councils to which we assent somehow contain error, or the Church itself somehow contains error. This is why I've said that you are trying to shoehorn Orthodox ecclesiology into the Roman Catholic model: You apparently need to have these proclamations about everything, whereby you can put it in category A or category B with regard to your Church's (not mine) idea of how the Church functions. You can do that 'til the cows come home for all I care, just don't mischaracterize or get mad about my responses because I won't play along since that entire model of how the Church functions is foreign to me. It's unorthodox.

OK, so to be clear, your belief is that Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus are not infallible, correct?

I am not asking you whether they DO contain error. I am asking you whether they COULD contain error. You already raised this distinction in one of your previous posts so clearly you understand the difference.

 

[dzheremi]

OK, so to be clear, your belief is that Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus are not infallible, correct?

I am not asking you whether they DO contain error. I am asking you whether they COULD contain error. You already raised this distinction in one of your previous posts so clearly you understand the difference.

Yeah...and monkeys could fly out of my butt. What's your point?

 

[IcyChain]

Yeah...and monkeys could fly out of my butt. What's your point?

So the likelihood of those councils being wrong is the same likelihood as monkeys flying out of your rear end (which we both know is absolutely impossible)?

If so, that is tantamount to a belief in infallibility. You just refuse to admit it. It is smoke and mirrors as I indicated previously.

On the other hand, if those three councils can be in error (without your flying monkey qualifier) - then you had no ground to answer my initial question by declaring that your church teaches no error. You should have answered “I don’t know if my church teaches error because the councils on which it’s teachings are based are not infallible”.

 

[dzheremi]

Okay. Are you done telling me what I should think and say yet? You don't seem to actually read my responses, so I'm going to place you on ignore now, since I have no time for someone like this who does not want to engage in any sort of conversation, but instead just dictate what everyone should say. I hope you have the chance to learn about the actual ecclesiology of the Church as it is lived, as opposed to propping up a false system like the RC ecclesiology that generates and tolerates so much blatant heterodoxy under the false belief that it can never be wrong because Jesus said something to St. Peter, and of course St. Peter = whatever Rome says in any given age, for ever and ever, in perpetuity throughout the universe.

 

[IcyChain]

Okay. Are you done telling me what I should think and say yet? You don't seem to actually read my responses, so I'm going to place you on ignore now, since I have no time for someone like this who does not want to engage in any sort of conversation, but instead just dictate what everyone should say. I hope you have the chance to learn about the actual ecclesiology of the Church as it is lived, as opposed to propping up a false system like the RC ecclesiology that generates and tolerates so much blatant heterodoxy under the false belief that it can never be wrong because Jesus said something to St. Peter, and of course St. Peter = whatever Rome says in any given age, for ever and ever, in perpetuity throughout the universe.

I hope you have a blessed day, my brother in Christ.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I hope you have the chance to learn about the actual ecclesiology of the Church as it is lived, as opposed to propping up a false system like the RC ecclesiology that generates and tolerates so much blatant heterodoxy under the false belief that it can never be wrong because Jesus said something to St. Peter, and of course St. Peter = whatever Rome says in any given age, for ever and ever, in perpetuity throughout the universe.

Written like a true reformer of the sixteenth century - or maybe one from the fifth century? It really does seem that reforming zeal almost always ends with serious hubris and deep error.

 

[BobRyan]

yes, all canon law is fallible.

The Catholic church teaches that the canon law of ecumenical councils are infallible as well as papal statements spoken ex cathedra.

Ecumenical council - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jesus taught that we are to love our neighbor, even our enemies, we are to "turn the other cheek" when violence is done to us by our enemy - He did NOT support the teaching that Christians are to kill/exterminate/torture/steal from fellow Christians if there is a doctrinal difference between them.

The Councils that teach that Christians are to kill/exterminate/torture/steal from fellow Christians if there is a doctrinal difference between them - are shown to be engaged in teaching gross error as can be seen by using the sola-scriptura testing method of Christ in Mark 7.

 

[BobRyan]

OK, so to be clear, your belief is that Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus are not infallible, correct?

I am not asking you whether they DO contain error. I am asking you whether they COULD contain error. You already raised this distinction in one of your previous posts so clearly you understand the difference.

The Lateran IV council calling for the "extermination of heretics" as part of its official, formal canon law - proves beyond all doubt that ecumenical councils CAN be in gross error.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Catholic church teaches that the canon law of ecumenical councils are infallible as well as papal statements spoken ex cathedra.

No, you are mistaken - not knowing the meaning of words and their significance - because "canon law" is a code of discipline and not a set of Dogmas and moral teachings, and the Canons of a council are often a mix of Doctrine and rules of conduct, the former being infallible, the latter being entirely of the moment and of limited duration.

 

[BobRyan]

No, you are mistaken - not knowing the meaning of words and their significance - because "canon law" is a code of discipline and not a set of Dogmas and moral teachings,

Teaching against the direct teaching of Christ - is gross error no matter how one dresses it up.

The teaching of Christ was as follows

Jesus taught that we are to love our neighbor, even our enemies, we are to "turn the other cheek" even when violence is done to us by our enemy - He did NOT support the false teaching that Christians are to kill/exterminate/torture/"steal from" - fellow Christians if there is a doctrinal difference between them.

The Councils that teach that Christians are to kill/exterminate/torture/steal from -- fellow Christians if there is a doctrinal difference between them - are shown to be engaged in teaching gross error as can be seen by using the sola-scriptura testing method of Christ in Mark 7

You appear to agree that they are engaged in gross error in those cases - but you reject the idea that telling Christians to do such things - is TEACHING Christians anything at all about what is or is not moral/just/good/righteous for a Christian. You are put in a very difficult spot having to make such a case.

 

[Philip_B]

No, you are mistaken - not knowing the meaning of words and their significance - because "canon law" is a code of discipline and not a set of Dogmas and moral teachings, and the Canons of a council are often a mix of Doctrine and rules of conduct, the former being infallible, the latter being entirely of the moment and of limited duration.

Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church Infallible? Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church Infallible? Catechism of the Catholic Church

No, not unless it is quoting Dogma, holy scripture, or moral teaching that is infallible. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a catechism, not a compendium of Church dogma.

 

[IcyChain]

The Lateran IV council calling for the "extermination of heretics" as part of its official, formal canon law - proves beyond all doubt that ecumenical councils CAN be in gross error.

It’s pretty amusing that when I googled this, the first two hits were other discussion board threads created by you ten years ago.

Another one of your rabbit-holes is it?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
The Lateran IV council calling for the "extermination of heretics" as part of its official, formal canon law - proves beyond all doubt that ecumenical councils CAN be in gross error.

It’s pretty amusing that when I googled this, the first two hits were other discussion board threads created by you ten years ago.

responses that lack substantive solutions to the irrefutable point I made above - are exactly why that same point 'remains to this very day'.

Your post illustrates the problem with that sort of "can't really address the point raised" response as if it were a "solution".

And often as in the case above -- it is done "as if we were simply not supposed to notice" the glaring lack of response to the point.

You can expect posts that are irrefutable and for which some have no answers... "to remain"

For example...

Teaching against the direct teaching of Christ - is gross error no matter how one dresses it up.

The teaching of Christ was as follows

Jesus taught that we are to love our neighbor, even our enemies, we are to "turn the other cheek" even when violence is done to us by our enemy - He did NOT support the false teaching that Christians are to kill/exterminate/torture/"steal from" - fellow Christians if there is a doctrinal difference between them.

The Councils that teach that Christians are to kill/exterminate/torture/steal from -- fellow Christians if there is a doctrinal difference between them - are shown to be engaged in teaching gross error as can be seen by using the sola-scriptura testing method of Christ in Mark 7

You appear to agree that they are engaged in gross error in those cases - but you reject the idea that telling Christians to do such things - is TEACHING Christians anything at all about what is or is not moral/just/good/righteous for a Christian. You are put in a very difficult spot having to make such a case.

Here for example we have "a distinction without a difference" if one does not skim past the point made about contradicting the teaching of Christ

Canons of a council are often a mix of Doctrine and rules of conduct, the former being infallible, the latter being entirely of the moment and of limited duration.

Essentially your argument becomes "they only contradict the teaching of Christ that you mention above for a limited time, limited duration.

Leaving us with the gross error "for a limited time" - and when you look at the 10's of thousands of Christians murdered under that policy over a period of centuries -- that "limited time" statement is apparently to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[dzheremi]

This may seem like a technical point, but I'm not sure that it is proper to call councils that are held by only one particular church in the communion "ecumenical". Are the canons of the council in question considered binding upon, say, the Maronite Catholics, or the Chaldean Catholics, and so forth? I wouldn't think so, but I really don't know, and I am aware that Rome has changed its approach towards its Eastern churches in more recent times (after 1215, anyway; many Eastern Catholic churches did not come into existence until after that time, anyway).