The reality is that no where is it stated that all the church ever teaches on faith and morals will be assuredly infallible (nor that is authenticity is based upon formal historical linkage, versus Biblical faith), but only one objective source is, that being Scripture. (2Tim. 3:16)
That does not mean the church cannot teach infallible truth, and the N.T., church did, being soundly substantiated by Scripture and Divine attestation (Acts 15) and which we know because it is in the Scriptures. the problem is that of an assuredly infallible magisterium
Yes, it is logically speaking somewhat of a problem. If Christianity were a branch of mathematics that would be a real difficulty. This is the same difficulty anyone with any kind of authority has: -- how do I know your badge is for real, officer?. As the matter stands, there is an assent of faith involved.
Or how do i know you are a not a fake officer with a real badge or uniform, in essence, taking the name of the law in vain? Regardless of the appropriateness of the analogy, that faith is involved is the point, but by God's grace it can be seen that there is more to it than that:
I also believe that the Church can lead me to salvation today dues to her unique relationship to God. Were I to discover some illogicality in what the Church porposes for my salvation, I would, no different than the Bereans' intention was, lose my faith.
The “also” aspect is still based upon faith, presumably due to some evidence. The point here is that you rely upon the very means that Protestants are criticized for using, because they discover inconsistency between what the Scriptures say and what she says. And while the Roman Catholic argument is that Protestants cannot ascertain truth by the use of PI (private interpretation) as they examine the Scriptures, and are told they need the AIM (Assuredly Infallible Magisterium) to ascertain truth, yet they can never be sure Rome is the OTC until they join her.
Rome affirms the use of PI in order to decide that Rome is the right infallible interpreter, and to therefore trust her implicitly*, and claims to give assurance which cannot be had by trusting Scripture, but condemns them if they hold that the Scriptures are the only infallible source of Truth, and dismisses all Scriptural arguments against any of her doctrines as being the result of PI, charging them with presuming they could be infallible, while asserting she assuredly is.
However, Rome's claim to be infallible is effectively based upon her infallible claim to be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (content and scope-based) formula. Scripture, tradition and history may be invoked in support of its conclusions, but the infallibility of her interpretations are based upon her claim to formulaic infallibility. Yet I also read where noted Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott states that “the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” — Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.
In contrast, the apostles (whose office Rome presumes to sit in) means of persuading souls was by appealing to man's conscience by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) which manifestation was by holiness and teaching which conformed to and complemented that which was written, along with powerful supernatural attestation from God. It was by such that their authority was established, while the Scriptures themselves were progressively established as being Divine due to their qualities and effects consistent with its claims. And while the apostles disciplined church members, their authority was not in words but in manifest power. (1Cor. 4:19,20)
That the Church can speak infallibly is not the issue, but the assuredly infallible aspect is. We know the New Testament church spoke infallibly in such places as Acts 15, because it promulgated Scripturally substantiated disciplinary law which is recorded in the inspired writings. But in no place do we see the church being promised that it would be infallible whenever it universally spoken on faith and morals, in union with the Pope, while Jesus reproof of magisterial presumption teaching things which were contrary to Scripture, some of which they could have argued was derived from it, argues against Rome's presumption in doing likewise.
While the Jewish magisterium was crucial, writings became recognized as being Scripture and faith was preserved in the Old Testament without an assuredly infallible magisterium, as the Jewish magisterium could and did err in teaching on faith and morals, but God raised up prophets -whose authenticity was not based upon physical lineage - to reprove them. And thus the faith was preserved among a remnant, which, relatively speaking, is where it really resides today.
In addition, insofar as belief that the Roman Catholic magisterium “eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations” (see below) this is a rather specious claim, as,
1. Disagreement continues even as to how many of the plethora of its pronouncements are infallible, which may be substantially higher than is commonly thought.
2. Not all Roman Catholic teachings is infallible (which requires assent of faith), for as non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary and General magisteriums may contain error, even if not salvific, then you can disagree with them to a certain degree.
3. Infallible teaching as well as non-infallible teachings require some interpretation (as does deciding which ones do and to what extent), a reality which has been abundantly evidenced. Even recently.
4. As very little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, “the Roman Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, or by the judgment of the magisterium, or the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith [all of which is subject to interpretation]. That is a great deal of liberty.” (Jimmy Akins, Roman Catholic apologist)
5. Within Catholic scholarship there are two very diverse camps even as concerns interpretation of Scripture, both publishing officially approved literature
6. Roman Catholics widely disagree with each other and the church, including official teaching (and which is implicitly allowed), and more than evangelicals on certain core moral and doctrinal issues.
7. Rome's official unity is not necessarily any greater than that of any one single Protestant denomination, while unity itself is not the goal of the Godly, nor are the means of attaining unity equal. The greatest doctrinal unity is found among groups such as the Watchtower society, which, like that of Roman Catholics, is based upon implicit trust in a magisterium that is effectively held as supreme over the Scriptures.
The teaching of the Living Magisterium is certainly open to critical review; no one is held inside the Church by force, and many indeed leave.
The former only concerns non-fallible teachings, while the AIM is the premise behind the argument for Rome eliminating divisions. As for freedom to leave the R. Catholic Church, this is was never issue, but the cult-like requirement of implicit trust in a teaching magisterium, which in times past implied loss of salvation by failure to do so, and today is required by Rome in order to be considered part of the one true church, continues to be so.
The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.
They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch. Based upon available evidence, Catholics come in close to last in Bible reading, and substantially disagree with her and each other. And while Rome promotes itself as providing the fullness of grace, her members overall manifest less commitment and conformity in key doctrinal and moral issues then evangelicals, while most who leave the Catholic church for evangelical churches (and this is the way the tides mostly runs) say they do so because of a spiritual lack within Roman Catholicism. Meanwhile, the Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception because they are contrary to tradition.
Considering that lay Roman Catholics have just as much or more disagreement in key issues as evangelicals may, another reason for their staying can be surmised, which is that their unity is based upon confidence in the church itself, and in their conscious identity, social and otherwise, as Roman Catholics. In contrast, evangelicals consciously identify themselves as relationship-oriented Christians far above any denominational adherents, as they see their Christian life really beginning with their conversion experience. This popularly fosters remarkable transdenominational fellowship with those who have realized the like transformative conversion.
Continued next post.
based upon faith, presumably due to some evidence
Yes, and the evidence is twofold. First, it is the scriptural evidence (like the Bereans). I do not see anything in the scripture that the Catholic Church does not teach, -- as opposed to things some interpretations insinuate contradict the Church, while the Church has its plausible explanation that fits the context better. Second is the guidance of the Holy Ghost manifest in continuing survival and adaptibility of both the Catholic Church and her Eastern sister Orthodox Church. That is contrary to the spirit of the times so perfectly catered to by the Protestantism. No other pre-medieval institution survives today in such historical authenticity. One coming close is the Roman Republic, but you win no arguments today in the American Senate by saying "Romans did it" or "Cicero wrote it". An analogous argument today in the Catholic Chruch has not lost any potency -- it usually wins.
Rome is the OTC
OTC is Old Testament Church? We don't claim it. The Catholic Priesthood is Melchizedek, not Levi. We claim provenance with the pregnancy of Mary in some mystical sense, and the Pentecost in the Upper Room in the formal sense. The "OTS" is at best a type, such as Abel, or the baptismal types in the Flood, the Exodus and Joshua, or David impersonating Elizabeth and the leaping John with the Tora scroll.
in no place do we see the church being promised that it would be infallible whenever it universally spoken on faith and morals, in union with the Pope, while Jesus reproof of magisterial presumption teaching things which were contrary to Scripture, some of which they could have argued was derived from it, argues against Rome's presumption in doing likewise
We see the promise of not failing in Matthew 16:18, in Peter having the prayer of Christ to confirm his brethren in Luke 22:31-32, -- the promise made even more substantial because it contains the admission of human frailty of all Pertine successors, starting with Peter himself. As I admit, were I to see a scripture that is in contradiction to the teaching of the Church, that would possibly destroy my faith, -- but it would by the same token destroy my faith in the Scripture also, because one cannot have faith in the product while not trusting the deliverer of the product. But I do not see such contradiction, and I sure asked you Protestants to show it to me. I see perceived contradictions, but nothing I cannot see with a Catholic eye as a harmony.
insofar as belief that the Roman Catholic magisterium “eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations” (see below) this is a rather specious claim, as [7 points follow]
Well, it eliminates doubt where the Magisterium desires to eliminate doubt. For example, one who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (belief coming form the Holy Scripture) or efficacy of prayer to Mary and the saints (Holy Tradition) or the intrinsic evilhood of abortion (Living Magisterium) cannot make a reasonable mistake of being Catholic. Where there is leeway is because the Apostolic Church does not intend to have a single determination (e.g. what language to use in the liturgy, whether married men can be priests, whether the donkey literally spoke to Balaam, whether divinely authored evolution is a possibility). Both certainty and incertainty serve the same purpose, to lead men away from error and allow healthy exchange of ideas at the same time.
the cult-like requirement of implicit trust in a teaching magisterium, which in times past implied loss of salvation by failure to do so
It still implies a danger of losing one's salvation. However, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is often misunderstood by Protestants because of their Faith Alone instincts. We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46). One dissenting from the Living Church of the Living God endangers his salvation because of the sustenance that the sacrament of the Church would have given him. It is not a direct, or automatic result of his dissent. For example, a Protestant cut off from the living water of the Church still can read the scripture and be inspired to his feat of faith. If he follows the call to holy life, he will be saved and die Catholic.
a highly presumptuous stretch
So test the presumtion. I have not seen a verse that cannot be easily and in context explained, again, barring attempts at explainign the miraculous. Many tried, on this thread alone.
Catholics come in close to last in Bible reading, and substantially disagree with her and each other
You are inserting a Protestant yardstick to get a Protestantism-favoring response. The Catholic may not read the scripture because they do not get the essentials of the faith from the scripture alone. They hear the scripture in a larger percentage than in a typical Protestant sermon in the course of the Mass; they know the lessons of the scripture. The Catholics are not trained to deliver chapter and verse prooftexts. That skill is a sport, not knowledge. When a Catholic, such as the Catholic Answers crew, or even yours truly, gives the idea of learning scriptural prooftexting some attention, we do just fine. There is not a verse in the New Testament that in context contraverts any Catholic doctrine. Whether many Catholics cannot prove it is not the point: the Priotestants, as I demonstrate daily, cannot prooftext their point either, and they sure try.
Catholic unity is based upon confidence in the church itself
Yes. Which stands in stark contrast to the Protestant unity based on a few prooftexts from Pauline epistles that do not say what you pretend they say and came from the same Church in the first place.