[Salvation]

This is an open thread to discuss the three pillars of the Authority of the Church.

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

[Tao Yin]

The infallibility of the different aspects of the church really twists my mind into a knot. The best I can understand infallibility is that the laity must treat everything as infallible unless an express statement is made that something was in error. Next, the pronouncement of error must be treated as infallible unless a future pronouncement denounces the previous pronouncement.

I think there are really only 3 infallible statements that have been made in an infallible way. Everything else is fallible, but must be treated as infallible by the laity.

Regarding the early church fathers, many believed in Subordinationism. Many of the same fathers who taught tradition taught subordinationism. The laity at the time were to treat this teaching as infallible. Around 350, subordinationaism was rejected, so the teaching that was to be treated as infallible was actually fallible and in error.

So my problem with tradition is that it's fallible, but we must treat it as infallible because someone who is fallible told us their teachings are infallible even though they know their teachings are fallible and accept the fact that a future fallible statement could affect the infallibility of their teachings. Like I said, it hurts my brain.