Why are you arguing a point I am not, in principle, contesting? Protestants do defer to leaders in the churches to resolve disputes. But nowhere is it taught or inferred that any such magisterial action becomes immune to direct challenge by the God-breathed Scriptures when they flatly contradict the same. And no church is above the possibility of losing its candlestick.
And I really want to pursue that further with you, but you are preventing me. I guess we have very different understandings of what I mean by my question on your fallible/infallible decision to follow Rome. I do not regard what you said to me as a direct or useful answer. I do not wish to know why you changed. Only whether you regard your decision as infallible.
In fact, in court, I would at this point ask the judge to consider you a hostile witness. You have multiple times evaded a direct, yes or no answer by trying, it seems, to paint yourself as being totally passive in the process. Being Catholic just happened to you. One day you were an Anglican just standing there and presto, the next day, there you were, Catholic. Really? Is that your answer?
Or were you a voluntary participant in your own conversion? I have long been told that is the Roman view of conversion. If you weren’t a voluntary participant, are you then a Catholic Calvinist? But if you were a voluntary participant, you did make a decision, didn’t you. And if you made a decision, it was fallible or it was infallible, wasn’t it.
That’s the answer I want, and you are not providing. It’s simple. Yes or no. Infallible or fallible. But that's OK. I get why you wouldn't want to answer that. It does, however, end our conversation, for reasons stated earlier.
Peace,
SR
“But nowhere is it taught or inferred that any such magisterial action becomes immune to direct challenge by the God-breathed Scriptures when they flatly contradict the same.”
That’s what I was looking for. Thank you. The Catholic church doesn’t teach that they have the authority to contradict scripture. Scripture and tradition work together. Infalliability in faith and morals also will not contradict scriptures.
“I guess we have very different understandings of what I mean by my question on your fallible/infallible decision to follow Rome”
This is why it’s so important to get the correct understanding of papal infalliability - you’ve got a misconception about it in that it permits a pope to say things that are contrary to scripture. Just the opposite. Anything that is infalliable will cohere with scripture.
Also - it can only apply to the pope, only on issues on faith and morals, and only when he speaks ex cathedra. All three have to be fulfilled in order for the pope to invoke infalliability.
Since I’m not Benedict XVI - none of what I say is infalliable. It doesn’t apply to actions whatsoever. That’s why I wanted to get the correct understanding of infalliability out first before answering your question.
“One day you were an Anglican just standing there and presto, the next day, there you were, Catholic?”
In a court of law, this is a very bad tack to take. I hope you’re not a lawyer. You have nothing to gain by raising this line of questioning.
I used to be an anglican. My bishop endorsed homesexual marriage. So yes, I had to make a decision. I chose to leave. I eventually (after about 4 years or so), decided to become Catholic. Why? Because they were the first and they are the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
“Or were you a voluntary participant in your own conversion? I have long been told that is the Roman view of conversion”
You’re belabouring on quite a few misconceptions. The difference between Catholics and protestants has to do with several differences in what they believe. The conversion process is the same (with a few differences wrt sacraments).