permanent infallibility post

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure where to email the mods or dust. i think that the criteria for infallibility should be permanently posted in the debate section. i mention this as attacking that is one of the major hurdles prots must defeat if they are to disprove the Catholic Church.

ya know.. ordinary vs. extraordinary.. how it evolves
all that stuff that apoutheon was talks about a lot

Edited March 14, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[jasJis]

Here ya go! It's online.
I. TRUE MEANING OF INFALLIBILITY

It is well to begin by stating the ecclesiological truths that are assumed to be established before the question of infallibility arises. It is assumed:


that Christ founded His Church as a visible and perfect society;
that He intended it to be absolutely universal and imposed upon all men a solemn obligation actually to belong to it, unless inculpable ignorance should excuse them;
that He wished this Church to be one, with a visible corporate unity of faith, government, and worship; and that
in order to secure this threefold unity, He bestowed on the Apostles and their legitimate successors in the hierarchy -- and on them exclusively -- the plenitude of teaching, governing, and liturgical powers with which He wished this Church to be endowed.
And this being assumed, the question that concerns us is whether, and in what way, and to what extent, Christ has made His Church to be infallible in the exercise of her doctrinal authority.

It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church's infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart, is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value. It will be best therefore to confine our attention to active infallibility as such, as by so doing we shall avoid the confusion which is the sole basis of many of the objections that are most persistently and most plausibly urged against the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility.

Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.

Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

It is well further to explain:


that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error;
that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in its organs; sinful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;
and finally that the validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible, not the preliminary stages by which it is reached.
If God bestowed the gift of prophecy on Caiphas who condemned Christ (John 11:49-52; 18:14), surely He may bestow the lesser gift of infallibility even on unworthy human agents. It is, therefore, a mere waste of time for opponents of infallibility to try to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of popes or councils that have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions, or to try to show historically that such decisions in certain cases were the seemingly natural and inevitable outcome of existing conditions, moral, intellectual, and political. All that history may be fairly claimed as witnessing to under either of these heads may freely be granted without the substance of the Catholic claim being affected.

[jasJis]

dairy,
As you can see. It's not a simple 2 sentence paragraph. It's a complex issue and it's intellectually dishonest from someone like Les to take parts out of context to discredit it. You would do well to also note the other fundamental assumptions that lead up to it. Since Les totally disagrees with the idea that Christ established a Church, then him arguing about the Church institution's infallibility is moot.

[Jaime]

and JasJis has a really cool avatar

[epiclesis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Mar 14 2005, 12:40 PM']...one of the major hurdles prots must defeat if they are to disprove the Catholic Church.

[/quote]
In my mind, a bigger hurdle which you have failed to address is why you would believe in the Bible at all if the Church is not infallible. Since it was the Church that declared the Canon of Scripture, how do you accept the Canon of Scripture if you reject the authority and infalliblilty of the Church?

It would be really nice if you addressed this.

[crusader1234]

Protestants don't accept the Canon of scripture.

[epiclesis]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Mar 14 2005, 07:07 PM'] Protestants don't accept the Canon of scripture. [/quote]
I understand that Protestants mistakenly think that the Church added books to the Bible following the Reformation.

The question still stands however. Why does any Protestant accept any Canon of Scripture at all? Why accept any one book of the Bible? Without the authority and infalliblity of the Church to declare a particular book as inspired, on what basis is any single book accepted as Scripture? Why are others rejected?

[dUSt]

Interesting.

[Anomaly]

 Ironic. 

I disagree with the initial assumptions required and all else disappeared like mist in a breeze. 

Edited April 28, 2015 by Anomaly

[veritasluxmea]

why on earth was this resurrected?