But the difference is that Protestant will not readily accept the fallibility of their understanding of the Bible. That is quite evident on these boards where Protestant posters routinely dodge questions about their interpretation of the Bible.
The answer always is other scripture verses that dodge the question and where the poster pretends that he or she is God by posting verses without context in a very SUBJECTIVE fashion.
But a Catholic can with great confidence embrace the teaching of the Church on matters of UNIVERSAL importance.
Even the number of ecumenical councils post-1054 is open to debate because councils like Trent and Vatican I were really only councils of the Western Church without participation of the Christian East.
Nontheless the Council of Trent’s anathemas against Protestantism stand as infallible because the Orthodox subsequently held their own synods that stated the same thing as Trent about Protestant beliefs.
Details such as the canonicity of 3 Maccabees could be dealt with at a future reunion council with the Orthodox.
St. Vincent of Lerins succinctly describes how a Catholic should search for the truth in his Commonitorium on the Catholic Faith, which was written around 430 AD.
[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
Those matters that fall outside of this consensus are open to debate and discussion because the above is the criteria for deciding what is infallible and what isn’t.
Even the Pope is himself subject to this dicta. The acts of the undisputed ecumenical councils with the Orthodox show the Pope speaking definitively with the rest of the Church.
So Papal infallibility is inseparable from ecclesiastical infallibility. The Universal Church is a standing council even when it isn’t formally convoked. The Orthodox believe the latter.
We can’t help it if Catholics don’t understand the answer.
The answer always is other scripture verses that dodge the question and where the poster pretends that he or she is God by posting verses without context in a very SUBJECTIVE fashion.
We see in Scripture God leading souls to truth without an assuredly infallible magisterium, as for wresting Scripture, you seem to be new here, but this can be true, yet i have extensively engaged Catholics which do just that, being not bound by context, as they feel free to extrapolate what they need to show support for teachings, even if Rome has not defined these verses as teaching what they support, and when their own Bible commentary interprets them differently, and even if it is only changeable church law. Yet the fact that Catholics or Prots do as you charge does not negate the premise that God leads souls to know truth as they personally prayerfully search, by conflation with Scripture and Scriptural supernatural means of confirmation (i presume here that you have read my other recent posts).
And while Catholics hold that you can only have surety of truth by assent of faith to the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, and that prayerful use of his human reasoning, which Christ appealed to, in examining evidence cannot provide certainty, what they avoid is their own lack of certainty, for their own conversion to Rome (or faith decision to affirm) was based on such “Protestant” means, and thus unless they require a prior assent of faith is necessary to place faith in Rome, then at best they made a fallible human decision to trust in an supposedly assuredly infallible magisterium, and continue to do so.
Like us, Catholics can only claim that the conclusion of their use of fallible human reasoning was confirmed (and thus they no longer need to use reason to know infallibly defined truths), yet then they still lack an assuredly infallible interpreter of their magisterium, like as they charge we lack for the Bible.
In practical application, the living magisterium still leaves Catholics lacking surety and engaging in much interpretation if they really place a priority on knowing for sure what is infallibility and what to believe, while what Rome overall fosters is implicit trust in herself to save her own nominal members, despite typically being ignorant and misunderstanding much.
And while compressive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized, yet along with divisions, evangelicals do overall have a common assent and contention for basic core truths, which separates them from cults, and their laity show more unity in many moral views and truths than their Roman Catholic counterparts.
But a Catholic can with great confidence embrace the teaching of the Church on matters of UNIVERSAL importance.
“Great confidence” is of no avail to the Catholic polemic, which is that we need absolute certitude which only their AIM can provide, even though this is not how Scripture was established and truth was preserved in Scripture even before there was a church in Rome.
Even the number of ecumenical councils post-1054 is open to debate because councils like Trent and Vatican I were really only councils of the Western Church without participation of the Christian East.
So you have debate. Nothing new here.
Nontheless the Council of Trent’s anathemas against Protestantism stand as infallible because the Orthodox subsequently held their own synods that stated the same thing as Trent about Protestant beliefs.
Here again there is interpretive disagreement, on an infallible statement, even among Roman Catholic apologists, and which i have seen expressed right on FR.
“In particular, the statement that anathemas were "put on all non-Catholics" is incorrect. In fact, the anathemas were only put on Catholics. You had to be a "card carrying Catholic" in order to "qualify." Anathemas never applied to non-Catholics. Anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "ex-communion-icated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of Anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.” http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/anathemas.htm
Also under dispute is how much of Trent was infallible teaching, among other declarations.
Details such as the canonicity of 3 Maccabees could be dealt with at a future reunion council with the Orthodox.
Among other issues on which “Tradition” is correct between two tradition-based churches. And as said, Rome may claim universal jurisdiction (and even the power of coercive punishment) but effectively she is just one of many who claim to be the OTC, based upon “infallible” interpretation of the information they use to find warrant this claim.
St. Vincent of Lerins succinctly describes how a Catholic should search for the truth in his Commonitorium on the Catholic Faith, which was written around 430 AD...[.
This leaves out the details, and the above does not affirm all what of Rome professes (as even the EOs will tell you), as the CFs disagreed on things with each other and with what Rome holds.
Those matters that fall outside of this consensus are open to debate and discussion because the above is the criteria for deciding what is infallible and what isn’t.
Not only, but upon deeper investigation what even is infallible and its meaning is subject to some interpretation.
Even the Pope is himself subject to this dicta
The pope and the infallible magisterium can claim what they want, such as acting according to the required “unanimous consent” of the fathers,” but as she claims to infallibly decree what is consistent with the past, and which decrees cannot be wrong — nor is assurance of their infallibility dependent on the weight of arguments for them — then such claims of conformity are simply claims.
As already given from no less a Roman Catholic Theologians as Cardinal Manning,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.
The acts of the undisputed ecumenical councils with the Orthodox show the Pope speaking definitively with the rest of the Church.
But also based upon the past, the EOs reject papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction, among other things,
So Papal infallibility is inseparable from ecclesiastical infallibility. The Universal Church is a standing council even when it isn’t formally convoked. The Orthodox believe the latter.
And Rome does not believe the pope is subject to councils, and if he ex cathedra declares the church always believed something, or the IM does, then it is held as true, even if it did not. Truth by fiat, while we must persuade "by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2; cf. 5:11) To God be the glory.
And while compressive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not realized, along with divisions, evangelicals do overall a common assent and contention for basic core truths, which separates them from cults, and their laity show more unity in many moral views and truths than their Roman Catholic counterparts.