Mark of the Cross Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289255104' post='2185864'] You just invented it. Why would you need to look it up? [/quote] You win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tally Marx Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289138485' post='2185528'] The point is that anyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but also claims to believe a man cannot infallibly teach the Word of God is an imbecile. [/quote] I think [i]The Church [/i]infallibly interprets Scripture. A man can only teach infallibility insofar as the Church has interpreted infallibly. If he attempts to interpret or teach something regarding Scripture which the Church has not infallibly interpreted and taught, then he is not infallible. And even if he happens to interpret/teach the truth, teach correctly, he would still not be infallible. The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit guides her, and prevents her from teaching any error in faith and morals. Infalliblity means you cannot be wrong, ever. Infallibility is that promise of the Holy Spirit. No man has this guarantee. That's where the leaders of Protestant sects went wrong: they thought that they are led by the Spirit when they interpret Scripture, that they are infallible in their interpretations. That's why we have so many Protestant denominations with contradictory beliefs. And no, I am not an infallible player [i]of that piece[/i]. I play it well. I am an expert in playing it. I rarely get it wrong. But I could still get it wrong the next time I play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissScripture Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 [quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1289261925' post='2185894'] I think [i]The Church [/i]infallibly interprets Scripture. A man can only teach infallibility insofar as the Church has interpreted infallibly. If he attempts to interpret or teach something regarding Scripture which the Church has not infallibly interpreted and taught, then he is not infallible. And even if he happens to interpret/teach the truth, teach correctly, he would still not be infallible. The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit guides her, and prevents her from teaching any error in faith and morals. Infalliblity means you cannot be wrong, ever. Infallibility is that promise of the Holy Spirit. No man has this guarantee. That's where the leaders of Protestant sects went wrong: they thought that they are led by the Spirit when they interpret Scripture, that they are infallible in their interpretations. That's why we have so many Protestant denominations with contradictory beliefs. And no, I am not an infallible player [i]of that piece[/i]. I play it well. I am an expert in playing it. I rarely get it wrong. But I could still get it wrong the next time I play it. [/quote] The Pope can teach infallibly. That is the man to whom Winchester is referring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tally Marx Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 [quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1289262163' post='2185898'] The Pope can teach infallibly. That is the man to whom Winchester is referring. [/quote] Then we are in perfect agreement. I cannot remember saying anything which implies otherwise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) error Edited November 9, 2010 by Mark of the Cross Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 [quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1289262163' post='2185898'] The Pope [b]can[/b] teach infallibly. That is the man to whom Winchester is referring. [/quote] ??? [b]Can[/b] implies not always, which would make him fallible. Anyone [u]can[/u] teach something which is [u]true[/u]. But to be infallible everything that he teaches must be correct. I don't think the Church claims that. They only claim him to be teaching truth in certain things otherwise we wouldn't have changes such as Vatican 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tally Marx Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289263328' post='2185903'] ??? [b]Can[/b] implies not always, which would make him fallible. Anyone [u]can[/u] teach something which is [u]true[/u]. But to be infallible everything that he teaches must be correct. I don't think the Church claims that. They only claim him to be teaching truth in certain things otherwise we wouldn't have changes such as Vatican 2. [/quote] The Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks Ex Cathedra, which he has only done a [i]very few [/i]amount of times. More often, when I hear of "infallible teachings", the statements came from ecumenical councils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 [quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1289264094' post='2185906'] The Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks Ex Cathedra, which he has only done a [i]very few [/i]amount of times. [/quote] Yes! That's what I understood and these are usually the obvious things such as the resurrection, historical accounts of Jesus etc. [quote]More often, when I hear of "infallible teachings", the statements came from ecumenical councils. [/quote] Actually I'm still a bit in the dark on this subject and can't help but feel the word is misused which is the reason for attacks on the Church by other denominations. In the past the Church taught that un-baptised infants go to limbo. Now, realising how ridiculous this belief is they have hedged around it by stating that there is no mention of it in doctrine so the Church does not teach it. Can you be infallible in some things but not others? Can you answer the questions you know for sure and not answer ones you don't know for sure and therefore be infallible? It's like the word substantial, we have Transubstantiation because one is substantial and one is not. It is or it isn't. Jesus is substantial compared to bread., but not the reverse. Consubstantiation is an impossible condition. How can bread be substantial compared to Jesus? Therefore logically the Church is correct in it's interpretation of the Eucharist but is it infallible? We still don't know the full story of why it is necessary to physically eat the body of Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289256617' post='2185870'] You win. [/quote] I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289268972' post='2185917'] I know. [/quote] I know you know. That's why you call yourself WIN Chester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Normile Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 [quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1288237232' post='2183134'] I thought I was mistaken once, but then I found out that I was wrong. [/quote] Wow !! I thought I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken. ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now