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.
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.
Where is infallibility defined as outcome of interpretation? NCE, Infallibility: “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.” “when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching...nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility.” Also, Orig. Catholic Encyclopedia: “infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error.”
Yey again (consistent to your definition), the fact that sedevacantists can teach error from (presumably) correct magisterial teaching demonstrates that the magisterium cannot be infallible which refers to outcomes of interpretation.
It [infallibility] 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.
If Scripture says what it is meant to mean, it is inerrant. If it is interpreted correctly, the interpretation is infallible.
Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus . . . reaffirmed the decisions of the Council of Trent and emphasized that the Bible in all its parts was inspired and that a stated fact must be accepted as falling under inspiration, down to the most insignificant item; that is, the whole Bible is the Word of God. "Origin, Inspiration, and History of the Bible" preface in New American Bible, Church Edition
So first 1 is redefined from pure transmission to one that cannot have bad reception, yet a certain receiver is assuredly infallible even though it can be misapprehended or misconstrued.
And (consistent to your definition) thus the words of the Lord Jesus and prophecies concerning Him were not inerrant or infallible (presuming a distinction) when such spoke about Him and Hs death and resurrection to His disciples, because they were misunderstood.
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.
As said before, 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 understand that is your belief, which is not the issue, but how one ascertains this, as one cannot know for sure from the Scriptures, which you assure us cannot be. Contd below. As for “Catholic Church,” what is not said in your careful wording is what this includes. If the infallible magisterium includes the Orthodox, then it excludes the Roman papacy, and her purgatory, etc.
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.
But since “Scripture cannot be infallible” by your definition, nor (by your rationale) any other source that can be misconstrued, then one cannot assuredly know from it that the RCC is the OTC, to whose infallible magisterium he should implicitly submit. And if that is the only infallible sources, then one he needs to submit to it in order to ascertain that it is infallible.
However writings were established as being Scripture and the faith was preserved (among a remnant, per usual) in the Old Testament without an assuredly infallible magisterium.
Nor is authenticity assured by formal historical decent (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44) nor is that required for authenticity under the New Covenant, though formal ordination is the norm, but the authenticity of a true believer or church is based upon Abrahamic type faith in the gospel of grace, (Rm. 2:28,29) with its Scriptural conformity and transformative effects which attests to it, by which faith the church has its members. (1Cor. 22:13) And as God could raise up children to Abraham from stones, so he can save souls in the desert and raise up bodies from stones like Peter who effectually confess the Lord Jesus, which continue to build His church, and perpetuate it, as it overcomes by faith.
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.
Well, there are chauvinists of every stripe. The fact is that the Church is the Church, made up of the five original sees.
They would hardly agree with your reproof or disunity. But besides my aforementioned statements as regards authenticity, in the past a stricter understanding as regards what was formally necessary for salvation seems to be in evidence:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff.. Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, #8 http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36 http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
LUMEN GENTIUM: 16. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26)
For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...
They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.
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.
Not sure what you mean here
That what is obvious is that that the assuredly infallible magisterium does not prevent the need for fallible interpretation, though it provides parameters. And evangelical SS type churches have their core truth and parameters as well, and evidence even more unity among members in certain core truths and moral values, despite diversity.