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.
As for “Why do you guys keep going on about Rome?” and your statement that “the Church..is not headquartered at Rome,” it is because your fellow RCs basically tell us that it is (capital C) and the rest need to submit to here. One prolific RC poster recently told me that for a liberal Catholic like John Kerry to leave the RCC and become a conservative evangelical would be like the fall of Adam and a step toward death.
Which ones? The Church is not headquartered in Rome. The Roman Catholic bishop is stationed in the Vatican, just like any other bishop is stationed somewhere. For example, the bishop of the New York City archdiocese is stationed where? New York City. And so on. I have no idea who this prolific Catholic poster is, but I do not believe that John Kerry is likely to become a conservative Evangelical.
Regarding your distinction btwn “infallible and “inerrant,’ I read (http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-theology-in-rapid-city/nt-wright-s-dismissal-of-the-importance-of-scripture-s-infallibility) that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it was not until 1837 that the English word inerrant was used in the modern sense of exempt from error, free from mistake, infallible. Thus, as JI Packer wrote, “Previously, the preferred term for expressing the conviction that Scripture never misinforms or misleads was infallibility…” (Inerrancy and the Church, 144),
The English language has changed its nuances over the the 300 years between the Reformation and this encyclical. The Church needed to provide a clear definition to people which, again, showed that people could defend old, or even derive new, heresies from Scriptural points.
For example, Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity and prove it from Scripture. The Branch Davidians used Scripture exclusively. So do all these cults.
As for printed words not being infallible in the sense that the RC magisterium is said to be, (exemption from the possibility of error) Script-ure is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and what was written sometimes had no oral stage.
Wholly inspired. Not wholly dictated. We understand that the Torah was dictated, because of Jewish Tradition and because the OT says it. It does not say that anywhere in the NT or even the rest of the Tanakh. And even so, these words may be taken out of context and used to come up with different conclusions, beliefs and theologies. As we see in the knotted spaghetti mess of the evolution of the Protestants since the Reformation.
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.
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.
Of course. It's SOP for anything the Catholic church puts in writing. One can never, ever take anything that the Catholic church says at face value.
It never means what it says; it means what the Catholic church says it means.
And that is whatever it takes to make the Catholic church look good or right.
“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.”
So you claim but your reasoning is off. For quoting something in defense or opposition is in fact an application of it to the matter at hand and thus an interpretation of it as pertaining to what has been said.
By the way, ever find where Christians are authorized to kill those that disagree with them? Recall our earlier conversation?
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.