Thread Tools  | Search Thread | Display |
#1
| |||
| |||
 Infallible interpretation,
I've been reading some Apologetic material from an Apologist who often likes to ask Protestants "Is your interpretation of this verse infallible?" The idea is that if they say no, it demonstrates that the rest of their interpretations or passages may also be wrong. If they answer yes...well, they're basically backed into a corner. My question is:
What if someone turns the question around? What if someone asks me? I'd have to answer no, because I'm certaintly not infallible....so what should I respond? This has been bothering me for days. Thank you   |
(source). Read through the thread and enjoy (for lack of a better word) the twenty or so bogus responses.
Posts
3 comments:
Figgy?
Not Fibby? ;-)
I rarely, if ever, try to "prove" anything when it comes to a theological argument, and I think people who do, are generally making a big mistake.
Wow. Why do people even listen to this guy?
Good job John Martignoni! While you divide people through Roman Catholicism, I'll be out there trying to unit people through the Gospel of Christ.
Just catching up on your blog.
Yes, the problems become apparent if pursued. While RCs attack SS Christians for having no infallible interpreter for their supreme authority, RCs do not have one for their supreme authority.
And while Rome has infallibly defined herself as infallible (when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined formula), RCs must interpret which out of multitudes of candidates are infallible.
And presuming they do so, they must interpret which of the other two magisterial levels a teaching falls (and indeed, how many levels or sublevels there are), and how much dissent is allowed.
But then they must interpret the teachings themselves.
They then have great liberty to (mis)use Scripture to support them, nor that this is the real authority for RCs, or that substantiation needed. Teachings must only not contradict Scripture, but Rome is the judge of that, as she has exalted herself as supreme over Scripture.
Some responses:
"even the Scriptures themselves depend on the authority of the Church"
"Invariably, the Church's interpretation is founded on sound analysis of a text or doctrine -- the Holy Spirit guards that soundness."
"I look to the Bible, to what the Church teaches, and to what the early Christians believed. but I guess I then run into the problem in that the Church hasn't infallibly interpreted much of the Bible; they leave it up to us and interpret as long as our interpretation doesn't go against Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium"
" I remember a thread here on CAF in which someone had asked which specific Biblical passages had been formally defined. There were many responses - most of which were quite weak, merely quoting passages which had been cited in witness of certain doctrines (but a mere citation is not conclusive evidence of a formal definition)."
One also writes,
"The phrase "Roman Catholic" is of protestant invention - and was intended as derisive. Out of ignorance, some Catholics have adopted this phrase."
I suppose this charge does not apply if you use more adjectives, like "Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" (Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo)
Or just "the Holy Roman Church" (Pope Benedict XIV; Paul IV, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio)
Post a Comment