Syncan:

I will allow you enjoy that your thread in peace and keep reassuring yourself.

Thank you. More importantly, thank God Christians have the reassurance of Jesus Christ and the apostles.

Syncan: Meanwhile I wonder what you mean by my rush to judgement.

Meanwhile, I wonder what you mean by my "rush to conclusions"!

Syncan: You tried to say that a church teaching is wrong by using their own document, and i simply pointed out that they may not be that daft for such to be so obvious to you.

If that is the way you choose to understand and present what I "tried to say", you are welcome to it.

Syncan: Your next post actually showed i made sense.

If you think so.

Syncan: Could you state the Catholic Church claim on Infallibility?

I can't be bothered. Could you state it and show what I've said so far that derogates from it?

What I find particularly annoying is this insistence by our brothers on waving aside arguments with accusations and knee-jerk statements.

What if Enigma is correct? What if Ihedinobi is correct? What if there is merit in these "anti-Roman" arguments? Will you Roman brethren insist on going to the dogs with them as well?

In the first place, you guys are not sure of anything you say on matters of faith and morals; except you claim to be infallible.

Your arguments shouldnt be against the Catholic Church, they should be within you.

Ask youselves: "am I certain that I am right?"

The Catholic Church at least claims to be certain and we believe it. So you have a crisis to deal with.

If you say that Catholicism is wrong, you are in-effect, claiming that you are certain that you are right, meaning you are claiming infallibility - the same thing you accuse the Catholic Church of.

If you claim to be fallible, the you are saying that you could be wrong on any or everything you say on faith and morals. How then can you argue against Catholicism that claims to be certain?

italo: In the first place, you guys are not sure of anything you say on matters of faith and morals; except you claim to be infallible.

So we need to claim infallibilty to be sure? Is that why you claim infallibility?

We are sure because of our infallible Teacher who does not give up on us when we misunderstand. What makes you guys sure?

Your arguments shouldnt be against the Catholic Church, they should be within you.

Really? How do you "should" an argument? If there is something wrong with the Roman Church, there will automatically be arguments against her.

And if we are required to keep our arguments to ourselves, then the Roman Church should also keep her errors to herself, no?

Ask youselves: "am I certain that I am right?"

And you've done the same?

The Catholic Church at least claims to be certain and we believe it. So you have a crisis to deal with.

Well, therein lies the problem, my friend.

If you say that Catholicism is wrong, you are in-effect, claiming that you are certain that you are right, meaning you are claiming infallibility - the same thing you accuse the Catholic Church of.

This isn't very good reasoning. One does not nees to be infallible to spot mistakes and error. And we are not accusing the Roman Church of infallibility, we are accusing her of a false claim to infallibility.

We hold that it is only the Lord Who is infallible.

If you claim to be fallible, the you are saying that you could be wrong on any or everything you say on faith and morals. How then can you argue against Catholicism that claims to be certain?

Still not very good reasoning. I don't need to be infallible to know that something is a lie, I just need to know from a reliable source what the truth is.

In fact, the mere presence of inconsistency is itself enough proof that someting is quite untrue. So when you insist on the Roman Church's certainty and this certainty is found not-so-certain, what do we have?


This post of yours is what I mean by knee-jerk responses and you made a staggering number of them on this thread.

Meanwhile if a group changes a doctrine or teaching then it says it was not infallible --- at least in respect of its earlier position! And it does not matter that the earlier position was not 'defined dogmatically'!

And as Limbo was mentioned earlier, here is the then Cardinal Ratzinger (present 'Pope Emeritus' Benedict XVI) as quoted on Limbo.

This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.

(God and the World, Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 401)

Enigma: Meanwhile if a group changes a doctrine or teaching then it says it was not infallible --- at least in respect of its earlier position! And it does not matter that the earlier position was not 'defined dogmatically'!

And as Limbo was mentioned earlier, here is the then Cardinal Ratzinger (present 'Pope Emeritus' Benedict XVI) as quoted on Limbo.

(God and the World, Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 401)

The Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Explanation of papal infallibility

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 — old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:

1)what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
2)the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
3)infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
a)The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
b)Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
c)Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
d)Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen

What infallibility means for the pope is less than what you claim for yourself.

^^^ And what infallibillity have I claimed for myself?

Enigma: ^^^ And what infallibillity have I claimed for myself?

Aha, do I really need to explain to you what your claims in https://www.nairaland.com/1229310/infallibility-christian-church-simple-approach really means?

^^^ I don't think you are capable; since you do not even understand it.

Further the simple point is lost on you that if the Roman Catholic Church claims "infallibility" on only a small range of things or teachings, it is then fallible on things/teachings outside that range.

Enigma: ^^^ I don't think you are capable; since you do not even understand it.

Ok,Agreed that I'm incapable of understanding illogicality.

Further the simple point is lost on you that if the Roman Catholic Church claims "infallibility" on only a small range of things or teachings, it is then fallible on things/teachings outside that range.

Hahaha, as if the church ever claim to be infallible in who you should vote as the next Nigerian president. Please go back to that site and read it carefully, that's why I called your attention to the true meaning of Papal infallibility in the Catholic church.

^^^ Ah ha! So you now admit that the Roman Catholic Church is fallible on some things after all.

Cool.

waste of nairaland server space

Enigma: ^^^ Ah ha! So you now admit that the Roman Catholic Church is fallible on some things after all.

Cool.

Ah well, we might as well have a little knockabout with the quotation explaining "papal infallibility" that my friend has taken from nothing less than the Catholic Encyclopaedia itself.

So, according to my friend, from the encyclopaedia we read:

....the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

In other words, doctrinal teachings of the pope which are not made ex cathedra are indeed ---- not infallible; oh that means they are fallible.

These would include erm encyclicals, papal bulls, sermons, exegeses, theological writings etc etc etc.

Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

Doctrinal decisions or instructions of the "congregations" of the Roman Catholic Church are not infallible; again that means they are fallible.

Oh by "congregation" do we include such an eminent body (or should I say 'eminentissimum') as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Enigma:
Ah well, we might as well have a little knockabout with the quotation explaining "papal infallibility" that my friend has taken from nothing less than the Catholic Encyclopaedia itself.
So, according to my friend, from the encyclopaedia we read:
In other words, doctrinal teachings of the pope which are not made ex cathedra are indeed ---- not infallible; oh that means they are fallible.
These would include erm encyclicals, papal bulls, sermons, exegeses, theological writings etc etc etc.

the above are excercise of the ordinary magisterium and other time of theological might. He isn't excercising papal infallibility.

Doctrinal decisions or instructions of the "congregations" of the Roman Catholic Church are not infallible; again that means they are fallible. Oh by "congregation" do we include such an eminent body (or should I say 'eminentissimum') as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

including the congregation of the new evangelisation etc, they don't excercise papal infallibility but d magisterium.

^^^ And in those capacities both the "pope" and "the ordinary magisterium" are erm well fallible --- even on matters of biblical doctrine.

Shikena.

Enigma: ^^^ And in those capacities both the "pope" and "the ordinary magisterium" are erm well fallible --- even on matters of biblical doctrine.

Shikena.

Hmm, that means you actually believe in Papal Infallibility in some capacities. I'm sure you've been enlightened.

^^ I already commented on your comprehension earlier.

Now perhaps, I should also tell you to mind your memory as well; 'papal infallibility' was one of the things I pointed out to you earlier as a nonsensical human construct.

Enigma: ^^ I already commented on your comprehension earlier.

hahaha, I remember telling you why I find it hard to comprehend which you of course did not refute.

Now perhaps, I should also tell you to mind your memory as well; 'papal infallibility' was one of the things I pointed out to you earlier as a nonsensical human construct.

Exactly why I went ahead to enlighten you, you do not condemn what you don't know about.

Syncan:

hahaha, I remember telling you why I find it hard to comprehend which you of course did not refute.

Of course I don't need to refute that kind of folly.

Syncan: Exactly why I went ahead to enlighten you, you do not condemn what you don't know about.

When I have just schooled you on your own quote and your organisation's doctrine? Now, thanks to me you realise at least to some extent how very fallible the "pope" is --- oh and the magisterium of course!

Ihedinobi:

So we need to claim infallibilty to be sure? Is that why you claim infallibility?

We are sure because of our infallible Teacher who does not give up on us when we misunderstand. What makes you guys sure?

:DDear friend. Make up your mind for once. Are you sure or are you not sure. If you misunderstand sometimes, how can you be sure?

Ihedinobi: Really? How do you "should" an argument? If there is something wrong with the Roman Church, there will automatically be arguments against her.

And if we are required to keep our arguments to ourselves, then the Roman Church should also keep her errors to herself, no?

My point remains. You are not sure of your positions... Including your opinion that the Catholic Church teaches error.

Ihedinobi: And you've done the same?

Yes.

Ihedinobi: Well, therein lies the problem, my friend.

This isn't very good reasoning. One does not nees to be infallible to spot mistakes and error. And we are not accusing the Roman Church of infallibility, we are accusing her of a false claim to infallibility.

But if you are not infallible (meaning you can possibly be wrong about your teachings and positions on faith and morals), how then can you be sure that another person or group is in error?

Ihedinobi: We hold that it is only the Lord Who is infallible.

What about Peter, Paul, James, John etc?

[quote author=Ihedinobi]Still not very good reasoning. I don't need to be infallible to know that something is a lie, I just need to know from a reliable source what the truth is.

But you have just said that you can misunderstand the "reliable source." So you can think you "know from a reliable source what the truth is" but in fact be holding on to an untruth thinking it to be truth. No?

Ihedinobi: In fact, the mere presence of inconsistency is itself enough proof that someting is quite untrue. So when you insist on the Roman Church's certainty and this certainty is found not-so-certain, what do we have?

The Catholic Church does not teach that it is certain about everything, in case that is what you are insinuating. It teaches that it cannot teach error.

Ihedinobi: This post of yours is what I mean by knee-jerk responses and you made a staggering number of them on this thread.

Thankfully, that you said I did doesnt mean I did.

italo:

:DDear friend. Make up your mind for once. Are you sure or are you not sure. If you misunderstand sometimes, how can you be sure?

How funny. I do not need to be sure of anything apart from the One I'm following. As long as I'm faithful in following Him, I'll be just fine, thank you.

My point remains. You are not sure of your positions... Including your opinion that the Catholic Church teaches error.

I am not sure of my positions? Where'd you get that?

Yes.

Good for you then.

But if you are not infallible (meaning you can possibly be wrong about your teachings and positions on faith and morals), how then can you be sure that another person or group is in error?

Lol. Wherever one has been taught concerning a matter and they have proved the truth of it by experience, they can recognize error concerning that thing.

Again, if one belongs in the Truth, then there is that in them that will resonate with Truth wherever it is even if their understanding is still develooing in the matter.

What about Peter, Paul, James, John etc?

What about them?

But you have just said that you can misunderstand the "reliable source." So you can think you "know from a reliable source what the truth is" but in fact be holding on to an untruth thinking it to be truth. No?

To cut to the chase, did you go through school at all or have a teacher/mentor at any point in your life?

The Catholic Church does not teach that it is certain about everything, in case that is what you are insinuating. It teaches that it cannot teach error.

There's a difference?

Thankfully, that you said I did doesnt mean I did.

I agree. But I don't really care to produce posts that evidence my claim. I'm rather tired of this discourse, you see. And I have a bit of mental work to do. So I don't mind if you throw out the claim wholesale.

Ihedinobi:
How funny. I do not need to be sure of anything apart from the One I'm following. As long as I'm faithful in following Him, I'll be just fine, thank you.

Why then, are you here arguing with fellow Christians, if all that matters is following Jesus, whether in error or in truth?

Ihedinobi: I am not sure of my positions? Where'd you get that?

You misunderstand what you are taught sometimes, don't you? It wasn't I who said so.

Ihedinobi:
Lol. Wherever one has been taught concerning a matter and they have proved the truth of it by experience, they can recognize error concerning that thing.

Again, you could possibly have misunderstood what you were taught. It wasn't I who said so.

Ihedinobi:
Again, if one belongs in the Truth, then there is that in them that will resonate with Truth wherever it is even if their understanding is still develooing in the matter.

Problem is...you are not sure that you are in the truth. You could be misunderstanding the truth and infact be in error.

Ihedinobi:
What about them?

Were they infallible?

Ihedinobi:
To cut to the chase, did you go through school at all or have a teacher/mentor at any point in your life?

Definitely not the kind of school and teachers that you had. I remember being taught how to analyze, understand and define my positions clearly.

Ihedinobi:
There's a difference?

Yes. Not surprised that you can't see it.

italo:

Why then, are you here arguing with fellow Christians, if all that matters is following Jesus, whether in error or in truth?

Can one follow Jesus in error?

You misunderstand what you are taught sometimes, don't you? It wasn't I who said so.

And I have a teacher that always corrects me and teaches me until I understand perfectly.

Again, you could possibly have misunderstood what you were taught. It wasn't I who said so.

That's why I asked you if you've ever had a teacher.

Problem is...you are not sure that you are in the truth. You could be misunderstanding the truth and infact be in error.

Why should I bother to answer this?

Were they infallible?

Again, why should I care to answer this? You did see what I said about who we believe is infallible.

Definitely not the kind of school and teachers that you had. I remember being taught how to analyze, understand and define my positions clearly.

Did you misunderstand anything, fail to grasp any lesson at all or need something explained to you more than once?

Yes. Not surprised that you can't see it.

But of course I can't. Because it's not there. "I do not teach error but hey I am not certain about everything". Perhaps you mean that the Roman Catholic Church only teaches what it is certain about, is that right? In that case, I would see a difference and wonder why anyone is talking about certainty in everything.