And the two strawmen said , come, let us reason together.
One of the "strawman" came about in part due to my own poor choice of words in post # 308, for when speaking of what could be possibly "fallible" I mistakenly used the wording doctrine and dogma as to applying to possibly fallible in "the deposit of faith" which can include writings of church doctors, etc., (as compared to also inquiring after just what is "infallible doctrine or dogma" which is said by the teaching magesterium of the Roman Catholic church to be necessary to be "believed"). But that wording in regard to "fallible" applied to doctrine/dogma had been introduced by D'fendr first in his own comment #306 when he reworded what I had said, claiming I had first said it in identical manner of intended meaning as he used it in his own comment #306 Subtle, huh? And now, very much seems stuck on that one false note.
Previously, I had been more clear as to the underlying fundamental question in #302, speaking there of "deposit of faith" which I assume can include writings of those which the [Roman] Catholic church have spoken of as "Doctors of the church" rather than or compared to doctrines and dogmas possibly found listed in aggregation elsewhere, which he then redefined --- saying that I said it as he did (in his own #306) when I had up to that point not done so, but was myself more clear.
D -- Of all the writings of found within "the deposit of faith", which doctrines and dogmas possibly within those, are required by the [Roman] Catholic church to be regarded by any and all who is part of that ecclesiastical community or would be, to be considered "infallible"?
Is there some listing of what is infallible dogma and doctrine, comparable to some "statements" found here or there, or writings of "church doctors" which can safely enough assumed to be not so infallible?
That's what originally meant (and did ask) as to including inquiry towards "fallible".
There was a point to all of it, with that being that it is apparent enough that any and all who would seek after what it is that is so "infallible" in regards to the work products of the "Magesterium" (once one can properly identify just what that teaching "Magesterium" is) then if those persons were to be "faithfully [Roman] Catholic" believing themselves to be member of "the One True Church" which should have or hold the truth without admixture, with my here putting it like that [no admixture] in attempt to reflect what many [Roman] Catholics project upon us here on the pages of this forum is the truth about their own ecclesiastical community to the exclusion of all others.
If or when (we should think "when") expressions of faith can be and/or are directed to be looked upon other than required to be regarded as above reproach that would render those something lesser or other than infallible leaving those writings requiring some rapprochement, analysis, sifting, harmonization etc., which unless engaged in with an authoritative guide by which all could be measured against --- would leave one where exactly?
That does bring us once again to the question which I did pose to D'fendr while pointing towards that question to be considered before needing bring to us here a list of that which according to ---not to his own opinion, which he could here express freely enough of course --- but as is required by this aforementioned "teaching magesterium" to be regarded as "infallible", with that question posed to any and all being the subject title/headline of this thread;
I do not have disagreement much of any real substance with acceptance for the principle of sola scriptura particularly when but one part of the five solas as I have already made mention of on this thread -- so I have answered the question.
The topic in general is somewhat explained here…
I get that you don't recognize the Church and it's authority. Nor do you believe what the Church teaches. So if that end's up being your point, there's no need.
My point is that no church or confession teaches fallible dogma - it's a contradiction in terms.
And to avoid a double standard, ask yourself or your church, for yourself:
Is there some listing of what is infallible dogma and doctrine, comparable to some "statements" found here or there, or writings of "church doctors" [or your founder or confession] which can safely enough assumed to be not so infallible?
Great point because we've all been there where we've quoted something some priest or bishop or even pope says and get the old *It's not INFALLIBLE* doctrine.
So clear up matters, it would be good to have a list of what is considered infallible doctrines which Catholics have to believe to be faithful Catholics, and what are just statements or opinion made by church officials which can be taken or left as the hearer so desires.