Scripture cannot be infallible
I was trying to reconcile your denial of the infallibility of Scripture with what Rome has historically held
It has to do with not only the words but with the interpretation of them. If I can defend a heresy using only Scriptural quotations, then the idea that the Bible cannot teach wrong is rendered invalid.
But even this is a matter of interpretation, that of what infallible means. Your definition is different from saying that its substance is inerrant, and or that its truth is pure, and which is how Scripture is treated within Scripture, while your definition would disallow anything that can be abused from being infallible, which disallows any authority from being infallible. And yet it presumes that Rome's claim to infallibility cannot be a misuse of history, tradition and Scripture.
Moreover, if you only simply rely on infallible declarations for certainty, then you are very very restricted, and uncertain about much, as no one knows for sure how many infallible teaching there are, or all of what parts of encyclicals are binding, and both need some degree of interpretation by non-infallible magisterium at some level. Like Scripture, the source could be pure but that does not necessarily prevent misconstruance. Meanwhile, the sedevacantists teach error (according to Rome) using nothing than writings of Rome, and can do so simply using infallible statements.
Yet Holy Writ — being progressively established as Divine by its enduring heavenly qualities — is the only objective authority declared therein to be wholly inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:16) And which shows authority being established by conformity and complementarity in faith, holiness and teaching to what God had prior established, along with Divine attestation in proportion its authority, such as seen most manifestly with Moses, Jesus and the apostles who instituted covenant and added new teachings. While Scripture and authority can be abused, such competition is needed as part of the test, as salvific truth is found by those who honestly seek Him with the whole heart, (Jer. 29:13) of a humble and contrite spirit, (Is. 66:2) which is the only kind that can know Him.
And even so, these words may be taken out of context and used to come up with different conclusions, beliefs and theologies.
As said, misuse of authority does not negate it. The Pharisees misused Scripture and their authority derived from it and Jesus reproved them by Scripture. But you validate an entity using Scripture and other sources to validate itself as infallible.
your fellow RCs basically tell us that it is (capital C) and the rest need to submit to her
Which ones?
You mean which ones tell us that the RCC is the one true Church? And that we need to submit to her? Surely you know which ones do not is the question.
The Church is not headquartered in Rome.
Surely you know the the word “Rome” is used because it is representative of the RCC, and “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled” (Augustine) is often quoted by Roman Catholics.
If you are referring to the need for a interpreter, as my 2190 post points out, “infallible” pronouncements themselves need some interpretation.
This does lead to somewhat of an agreement inasmuch as somebody needs to interpret these words - either the Church Magisterium or somebody else, often in the comfort of their own home.
That the assuredly infallible magisterium (“AIM” for future use) does not prevent the need for fallible interpretation is what should see agreement.
But the problem is not that the interpretation of these words may be infallible in themselves, but the formulaic assured status Rome infallibly claims she has as the uniquely supreme interpreter.
We believe that that is the responsibility of the Church - the teaching (and therefore interpreting) body given it by Christ.
It is, but Rome's claim is based upon her infallible declaration that she is who she says she is, according to her AIM, which is infallibly declared to be infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallibly declared formula. And which presumes that she is worthy of the implicit trust that she requires.
Alrighty then.....
Good post and very interesting to follow. Thank you.
If Scripture says what it is meant to mean, it is inerrant. If it is interpreted correctly, the interpretation is infallible. What is correct? We believe that the Catholic Church (not just the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome) was given the Holy Spirit to watch over the Church and to guide it through its responsibilities which include interpretation.
Moreover, if you only simply rely on infallible declarations for certainty, then you are very very restricted, and uncertain about much, as no one knows for sure how many infallible teaching there are, or all of what parts of encyclicals are binding, and both need some degree of interpretation by non-infallible magisterium at some level. Like Scripture, the source could be pure but that does not necessarily prevent misconstruance. Meanwhile, the sedevacantists teach error (according to Rome) using nothing than writings of Rome, and can do so simply using infallible statements.
To them was not given the authority. Therefore they can only post opinions without weight. The sedevacantists do teach error, as do the Jansenites, as did the Cathars, as did the Marcionists et al. The fact that they can teach error from correct Scripture demonstrates that while Scripture is written as intended (inerrant), it cannot be infallible which refers to outcomes of interpretation.
As said, misuse of authority does not negate it. The Pharisees misused Scripture and their authority derived from it and Jesus reproved them by Scripture. But you validate an entity using Scripture and other sources to validate itself as infallible.
The authority of the Church is well documented in Scripture and can stand by itself. It also happens to be documented elsewhere.
You mean which ones tell us that the RCC is the one true Church? And that we need to submit to her? Surely you know which ones do not is the question.
Well, there are chauvinists of every stripe. The fact is that the Church is the Church, made up of the five original sees.
Surely you know the the word “Rome” is used because it is representative of the RCC, and “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled” (Augustine) is often quoted by Roman Catholics.
Often? I don't recall ever reading it on FR; and had to look it up on Google.
That the assuredly infallible magisterium (“AIM” for future use) does not prevent the need for fallible interpretation is what should see agreement.
Not sure what you mean here.
It is, but Rome's claim is based upon her infallible declaration that she is who she says she is, according to her AIM, which is infallibly declared to be infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallibly declared formula. And which presumes that she is worthy of the implicit trust that she requires.
We have the Faith that she is, handed down for 2000 years and supported by Scripture and other documentation. That is what I, as well as all Catholics, believe.