On the Infallibility of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium

On the Infallibility of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium

1. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium are a reflection of the Most Holy Trinity.

Tradition is a reflection of the Father; Scripture is a reflection of the Son; Magisterium is a reflection of the Spirit. Scripture proceeds from Tradition, just as the Son proceeds from the Father. Magisterium proceeds primarily from Tradition and Secondarily from Scripture, just as the Spirit proceeds primarily from the Father and secondarily from the Son. Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium are three distinct aspects of One Divine Gift, just as the Trinity is three distinct Persons of One Divine Being. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium are inseparable, just as the Father, Son, Spirit are inseparable. Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Magisterium are infallible because they are a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Holy Trinity.

2. Sacred Tradition is “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation.” (Dei Verbum, n. 2).

Sacred Tradition is infallible because it is the deeds of the Infallible and Most Holy Trinity. Everything that God is and everything that God does is One Divine Eternal Infallible Act. Sacred Tradition is infallible because it is a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Father.

If the deeds wrought by God in salvation history were merely teaching stories or myths, with little or no historical value, then Tradition would cease to be the deeds of the God and would not be infallible.

3. Sacred Scripture proceeds from Sacred Tradition.

Sacred Scripture is infallible because it proceeds from infallible Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is infallible because it is a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Son. Sacred Scripture is infallible because it is words written by God, and because it is the Word of God, and because it is One Utterance of God.

If Sacred Tradition does not exist, or if it is not the infallible deeds of God, then Sacred Scripture would lose its foundation and would not be infallible. If Sacred Scripture is fallible, then it is not the Word of God. If Sacred Scripture is full of errors, then Sacred Tradition, from which Scripture proceeds, would be full of errors. If Tradition and Scripture are full of errors, then the Teaching of the Church would be full of confusion and error. Such is not the case.

4. Sacred Magisterium proceeds primarily from Sacred Tradition and secondarily from Sacred Scripture.

The Sacred Magisterium can be exercised by the Pope alone, or by the body of Bishops led by the Pope. The Sacred Magisterium is infallible because it is a true reflection and a true work of the Infallible Spirit. The Sacred Magisterium is infallible because it teaches only from Sacred Infallible Tradition and Sacred Infallible Scripture, by the Infallible guidance of the Most Holy Spirit.

If Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are not infallible, then neither can the Sacred Magisterium be infallible, for the Sacred Magisterium teaches only from Tradition and Scripture. The Sacred Magisterium cannot teach that Tradition or Scripture contain errors of any kind, because Tradition and Scripture are the foundation of the Sacred Magisterium.

5. The Canon of Sacred Scripture is the books of the Bible recognized by the Sacred Magisterium.

The books of the Bible include the Old Testament books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees; and the New Testament books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

Included in the Canon of Sacred Scripture are all the words of all of the above books, including the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts in Daniel and Esther, and the prologues of Lamentation and of Sirach, which are found in the Latin Vulgate.

Excluded from the Canon of Scripture are any books from that same general time period but not listed above, including other so-called gospels, epistles, or apocalyptic writings. Also excluded are the apocryphal books (those that are not called Deuterocanonical), including Psalm 151, the prayer of Manasseh, and 1 Esdras. Also excluded from the Canon of Scripture is the alleged document called 'Q' or 'Q-source,' and any hypothetical reconstructions of such an alleged document. Further excluded are any and all hypothetical reconstructions which claim to recover the sayings or words of Jesus better than, or above and beyond, what is Divinely-revealed in Scripture itself.

6. There is no single definitive version or edition of the Bible.

Among the many versions and editions of the Bible, in the many different languages, no one version or edition can stand alone as the definitive version. No one version or edition can claim to hold all the truths of the Bible. No one version or edition can claim to bring an end to the usefulness or necessity of all other versions and editions. Any particular version or edition may clarify certain truths, yet obscure other truths, even within the same verse. No one wording or language brings out every level of truth found in every verse. Comparing the wording of several different versions or editions, especially in different languages, often brings the reader to a greater understanding of the truth than could ever be presented to the reader in only one version or edition or language.

7. There is no single definitive language for the Bible

No one language is definitive over every other language, yet of the various languages used in ancient times, and of those used to translate in modern times, each makes their contribution to the task of making the unfathomable depths of the many levels of Truth found within the Sacred Texts clear and accessible to the faithful.

When the Council of Trent emphasized the importance and indisputability of the Latin Vulgate Bible, the Fathers of that Council did not specify a particular edition to be preeminent above other editions, but rather they taught that the Latin Scriptural tradition, having its roots in the earliest days of the Church, is authoritative, cannot be ignored or rejected or belittled, and must never pass away from usage and veneration in the Church. But neither did they even suggest that the Hebrew or Greek or other languages be ignored or rejected or belittled.

Contrary to the belief and practice of modern scholars, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek text of the Old Testament is definitive. The Greek text of the New Testament is not definitive. Even those languages not used during Biblical times, languages into which the Bible is translated, often bring to the text a new phrasing that clarifies truths which were otherwise quite obscure in the Biblical languages. Every language into which the Bible has ever been written or translated contributes substantially to this holy expression of Truth in written form. Let no one ever say or believe that the true meaning of the Bible cannot be understood apart from the original languages of the Bible. Let no one ever claim that any word or phrase in the Bible can only be understood in its original language. Every word and phrase in the Bible is able to be translated and able to be understood in its translated form.

8. The truths of the Bible are not completely contained, nor fully expressed, in any single edition.

The truths of the Bible subsist across every version and edition put together. Since no one language, translation, version, or edition of the Bible is definitive, the Bible is every manuscript, translation, version, and edition, in every language, put together. All the editions of the Bible are one edition. All the languages of the Bible are one language. All the languages, manuscripts, printings, translations, versions, and editions of the Bible are one Text, in the sight of the One Holy God.

9. Any edition of the Bible may have errors particular to that edition.

God never allows such particular errors to enter every extant edition of the Bible, nor to become lost in a myriad of editions duplicating the same error. These errors are not errors in anything asserted by the sacred writers or by God through the sacred writers. These are the possible errors of copyists, printers, translators, and editors. Yet even these errors are never permitted by God to cause the Truths of the Sacred Word of God to become lost to the faithful. God protects the Truths of Scripture to the extent that copyists, printers, translators, editors, commentators, and readers, on the whole, cannot cause even the slightest truth of Scripture to pass away from the life of the Church on earth. Therefore, the infallibility of Sacred Scripture is a continuous work of the Holy Spirit.

The possible errors of particular editions include copyist errors, printing errors, translating errors, and editing errors. Copyist errors are frequently seen in ancient manuscripts, which include misspellings, dropped or added words or letters, repeated words, or the confusion of one word with another similar word. Printers errors include a similar array of possible mistakes. Translator errors are easily seen by comparing various translations and by finding verses where different translations have opposite or irreconcilable meanings. Editing errors are seen in misleading punctuation or capitalization, in the omission of certain parts of the text or their relegation to a footnote, and in any unwise addition, subtraction, or substantial change in the text. Translators and editors also sometimes make unwise decisions on the overall approach to translating and editing, such as trying to accommodate the text to modern concerns, altering the text to suit the ideas of modern culture and society.

10. Everything asserted by the Bible as true, is infallibly and unerringly true, without exception.

Some assertions are made deliberately and knowingly by the sacred writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Other assertions are made by the Holy Spirit, even beyond the understanding and intention of the inspired writers. In both cases, everything asserted as true by the inspired writers, or by the Holy Spirit through the writers, is infallibly true. These truths include truths of faith and morals, truths of science, history, geography, human nature, human society, and all other areas of knowledge and understanding. These truths include, but are not limited to, those truths written for the sake of our salvation.

11. Apparent errors in the Bible have a number of explanations, in particular: misunderstanding the text, a lack of faith, and even an ill will.

Some passages are mistakenly interpreted an overly literal manner and so seem to be false. Other passages are mistakenly interpreted according to a modern way of thinking. The ancients had a different way of describing and understanding the world. Some readers expect an unreasonable degree of precision from the text. The Bible is both true and accurate in all that it asserts as true, to whatever degree of accuracy it asserts. Some passages are thought to be in error because the order of events is different, but it is a common storytelling technique to present events in other than a chronological order. Quotes in the Bible are not presented as if they were exact word-for-word quotes, such as we write today. They are free quotations, sometimes rewording the quote and sometimes joining it with words from another passage or another speech. This is not an error, but merely a difference between the ancient and modern method of expressing quotes.

Unusual or miraculous events described in the Bible are sometimes used to support a claim that the Bible contains falsehoods. The problem here is not found in the text, but in the lack of faith in the reader concerning the miraculous intervention of God in human events. If, however, there should be any passage or verse which seems to be false and for which no reasonable explanation is presently available, the reader should still believe, with a sincere and constant faith, that the passage or verse is true and without error. For anyone who believes only what he understands possesses understanding, but not faith.

Finally, it is clear that some persons deliberately seek passages that they can distort, so as to claim that the Bible is false and unreliable. Such persons have an ill will toward the Bible because they despise its true teachings on faith and morals. They undermine the authority of the Bible in order to exalt themselves, to justify their own sins, and to teach others the same. They deliberately attack the Bible with false accusations because of the malice in their own souls.

12. The Sacred Magisterium has the ability and the authority to interpret Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture infallibly.

All theologians and Biblical scholars must submit to the authority of the Sacred Magisterium to interpret and to teach from Tradition and Scripture. Each Christian should read or listen to the Bible, learning directly from the text. But each Christian should also form his understanding of the text according to the teachings of the Magisterium.

by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
December 16, 2005

Apparently you Protestants are not asserting your own “broken record” despite the fact that many leading and eminent Protestant theologians after years of careful and extensive study, some deliberately setting out to prove the Catholic Church wrong, have not only converted to Catholicism but have reached the obvious conclusion what Dr. David Anders, a former Protestant theological scholar sums up thus: “I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.” Enough said.

Really? I found the quote no more compelling than all the previous times you posted it. As AMPU pointed out, even if the author's credentials were as impressive as you claimed, it still amounts to an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. [I would also point out that your insistence of a flood of conversions to Catholicism which is used as support for your position is also a logical fallacy, appeal to popularity. Besides, there is no evidence that such a movement is actually taking place.]

You can see for yourself now why you don’t like us Catholics bringing up the rotten and vacuous mass of Protestant scriptural interpretations from Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, and Billy Graham right down to your corner street Fousquare Church pastor.

I object because it doesn't prove anything but seems to be designed to be argumentative and dismissive. Their errors don't disprove the standard Protestant position any more than the list of bad Popes or pedophile priests disprove the standard Catholic position. It is nothing but another type of ad hominem argument, the association fallacy.

These folks use religion to amass a nice personal fortune for themselves and their families because there are always enough shallow-minded Protestants to fill up the pews long after their theologians have branded Protestantism an embarrassment.

Painting with a bit of a broad brush, aren't we? [BTW, that is also a logical fallacy.] It is true that some pastors have fleeced their flocks for personal gain. It is not new - don't forget that was one of the problems that led to a Reformation - clergy exploiting peasants by selling indulgences and other abuses to enrich themselves. You need to get out a bit more. In my circle of acquaintances, I know several Protestant pastors who work an outside job (or 2) to keep their small churches afloat and they aren't getting rich, nor have that desire. I know several Protestant missionaries who have made huge financial sacrifices to spread the Gospel.

Yet Protestants have the gall to question the very Petrine infallibility that gave us the canonical texts and as understood by the early Church fathers, saints and martyrs.

Protestants question this because Catholics have never proven it true (despite bellicose assertions and feigned outrage that someone dare question it). Protestants believe Jesus Christ when He told us that the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit does not need Peter or his successors nor an institutionalized church to accomplish His mission.

.....Ignatius - Never build a doctrine based on an uninspired, undatable, clearly changed, apocryphal manuscript......

From: Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians.
"The epistles ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other documents connected with the primitive Church. As is evident to every reader on the very first glance at these writings, they contain numerous statements which bear on points of ecclesiastical order that have long divided the Christian world; and a strong temptation has thus been felt to allow some amount of prepossession to enter into the discussion of their authenticity or spuriousness. At the same time, this question has furnished a noble field for the display of learning and acuteness, and has, in the various forms under which it has been debated, given rise to not a few works of the very highest ability and scholarship. We shall present such an outline of the controversy as may enable the reader to understand its position at the present day.
There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelae, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnaeans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.
It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.
But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius. This was the opinion generally acquiesced in, from the time when critical editions of these Epistles began to be issued, down to our own day. Criticism, indeed, fluctuated a good deal as to which Epistles should be accepted and which rejected. Archp. Usher (1644), Isaac Vossius (1646), J. B. Cotelerius (1672), Dr. T. Smith (I709), and others, edited the writings ascribed to Ignatius in forms differing very considerably as to the order in which they were arranged, and the degree of authority assigned them, until at length, from about the beginning of the eighteenth century, the seven Greek Epistles, of which a translation is here given, came to be generally accepted in their shorter form as the genuine writings of Ignatius.
Before this date, however, there had not been wanting some who refused to acknowledge the authenticity of these Epistles in either of the recensions in which they were then known to exist. By far the most learned and elaborate work maintaining this position was that of Daillé (or Dallaeus), published in 1666. This drew forth in reply the celebrated Vindiciae of Bishop Pearson, which appeared in 1672. It was generally supposed that this latter work had established on an immoveable foundation the genuineness of the shorter form of the Ignatian Epistles; and, as we have stated above, this was the conclusion almost universally accepted down to our own day. The only considerable exception to this concurrence was presented by Whiston, who laboured to maintain in his Primitive Christianity Revived (1711) the superior claims of the longer recension of the Epistles, apparently influenced in doing so by the support which he thought they furnished to the kind of Arianism which he had adopted.
But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner, in his Credibility of the Gospel History (1743): "have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger.... But whether the smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question."
This expression of uncertainty was repeated in substance by Jortin (1751), Mosheim (1755), Griesbach (1768), Rosenmüller (1795), Neander (1826), and many others; some going so far as to deny that we have any authentic remains of Ignatius at all, while others, though admitting the seven shorter letters as being probably his, yet strongly suspected that they were not free from interpolation. Upon the whole, however, the shorter recension was, until recently, accepted without much opposition, and chiefly in dependence on the work of Bishop Pearson above mentioned, as exhibiting the genuine form of the Epistles of Ignatius.
But a totally different aspect was given to the question by the discovery of a Syriac version of three of these Epistles among the mss. procured from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara, in the desert of Nitria, in Egypt. In the years 1838, 1839, and again in 1842, Archdeacon Tattam visited that monastery, and succeeded in obtaining for the English Government a vast number of ancient Syriac manuscripts. On these being deposited in the British Museum, the late Dr. Cureton, who then had charge of the Syriac department, discovered among them, first, the Epistle to Polycarp, and then again, the same Epistle, with those to the Ephesians and to the Romans, in two other volumes of manuscripts.
As the result of this discovery, Cureton published in 1845 a work, entitled, The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to Polycarp, the Ephesian, and the Romans, etc., in which he argued that these Epistles represented more accurately than any formerly published what Ignatius had actually written. This, of course, opened up the controversy afresh. While some accepted the views of Cureton. others very strenuously opposed them. Among the former was the late Chev. Bunsen; among the latter, an anonymous writer in the English Review, and Dr. Hefele, in his third edition of the Apostolic Fathers. In reply to those who had controverted his arguments, Cureton published his Vindiciae Ignatianae in 1846, and his Corpus Ignatianum in 1849. He begins his introduction to the last-named work with the following sentences: "Exactly three centuries and a half intervened between the time when three Epistles in Latin, attributed to St. Ignatius, first issued from the press, and the publication in 1845 of three letters in Syriac bearing the name of the same apostolic writer. Very few years passed before the former were almost universally regarded as false and spurious; and it seems not improbable that scarcely a longer period will elapse before the latter be almost as generally acknowledged and received as the only true and genuine letters of the venerable Bishop of Antioch that have either come down to our times, or were ever known in the earliest ages of the Christian Church."
Had the somewhat sanguine hope thus expressed been realized, it would have been unnecessary for us to present to the English reader more than a translation of these three Syriac Epistles. But the Ignatian controversy is not yet settled. There are still those who hold that the balance of argument is in favour of the shorter Greek, as against these Syriac Epistles. They regard the latter as an epitome of the former, and think the harshness which, according to them, exists in the sequence of thoughts and sentences, clearly shows that this is the case. We have therefore given all the forms of the Ignatian letters which have the least claim on our attention. The reader may judge, by comparison for himself, which of these is to be accepted as genuine, supposing him disposed to admit the claims of any one of them. We content ourselves with laying the materials for judgment before him, and with referring to the above-named works in which we find the whole subject discussed. As to the personal history of Ignatius, almost nothing is known. The principal source of information regarding him is found in the account of his martyrdom, to which the reader is referred. Polycarp alludes to him in his Epistle to the Philippians (chap. ix.), and also to his letters (chap. xiii.). Irenaeus quotes a passage from his Epistle to the Romans (Adv. Haer., v.28; Epist. ad Rom., chap. iv.), without, however, naming him. Origen twice refers to him, first in the preface to his Comm. on the Song of Solomon, where he quotes a passage from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, and again in his sixth homily on St. Luke, where he quotes from the Epistle to the Ephesians, both times naming the author. It is unnecessary to give later references.
Supposing the letters of Ignatius and the account of his martyrdom to be authentic, we learn from them that he voluntarily presented himself before Trajan at Antioch, the seat of his bishopric, when that prince was on his first expedition against the Parthians and Armenians (a.d. 107); and on professing himself a Christian, was condemned to the wild beasts. After a long and dangerous voyage he came to Smyrna, of which Polycarp was bishop, and thence wrote his four Epistles to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, the Trallians, and the Romans. From Smyrna he came to Troas, and tarrying there a few days, he wrote to the Philadelphians, the Smyrnaeans, and Polycarp. He then came on to Neapolis, and passed through the whole of Macedonia. Finding a ship at Dyrrachium in Epirus about to sail into Italy, he embarked, and crossing the Adriatic, was brought to Rome, where he perished on the 20th of December 107, or, as some think, who deny a twofold expedition of Trajan against the Parthians, on the same day of the year a.d. 116.
Philip Schaff: Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Introductory Note to the Syriac Version of the Ignatian Epistles:
Some account of the discovery of the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles has been already given. We have simply to add here a brief description of the mss. from which the Syriac text has been printed. That which is named a by Cureton, contains only the Epistle to Polycarp, and exhibits the text of that Epistle which, after him, we have followed. He fixes its age somewhere in the first half of the sixth century, or before the year 550. The second ms., which Cureton refers to as b, is assigned by him to the seventh or eighth century. It contains the three Epistles of Ignatius, and furnishes the text here followed in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans. The third ms., which Cureton quotes as g, has no date, but, as he tells us, "belonged to the collection acquired by Moses of Nisibis in a.d. 931, and was written apparently about three or four centuries earlier." It contains the three Epistles to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans. The text of all these mss. is in several passages manifestly corrupt, and the translators appear at times to have mistaken the meaning of the Greek original.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.