/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The obvious counterpoint is that if the Church is fallible there would no reason to accept the trinity or the numerous other dogmas which were decided at the various councils. People accept them because when the Bishops come together the church IS infallible. The point of church infallibility is so heresies can be condemned as heresy without having endless schisming and bickering, without it you get modern day Protestantism which is…endless schisming and bickering.

>>709843

I don't see how your comment actually engages with what the post says.

>>709856

He's trying to claim that the arguments for Church infallibility don't work because there has only been a few times in the history of the church when infallible decisions have been made.

>However when the objection is strongly pressed, when teachings and ecclesiastical documents, both in the present and from the past, which seems to contradict one’s system are presented, the adherent of infallibility would automatically “retreat” back into the “motte” and claim that infallibility has only been invoked very few of times, for Roman Catholics in particular, Vatican I and the Marian dogmas, and doesn’t apply to [insert teachings which one doesn’t like from Unam Sanctam to Humani Generis]. But of course this retreat eviscerates the very purpose of church infallibility, to provide clear and undoubted guidance on substantive issues of Church and Moral Life.

That's irrelevant though because the purpose of church infallibility is to define the limits of orthodox dogma and to declare certain theological concepts either orthodox or heretical. You don't need an infallible church pronouncement on every single small bit of doctrine, all you need is that when there are significant disagreements within the church (which there haven't been for over 1000 years), then the Bishops need to come together and come to a decision as they did as Nicea and the councils after.

We DO have clear and undoubted guidance on substantive issues, so his argument makes no sense.

>>709843

>taking every possible opportunity to slam those Christians I don't like

I see your lips moving … will you say something interesting soon?

>>709880

How is pointing out his argument for the church not having infallible apostolic authority is bad "slamming" Christians I don't like?

The argument fails because in cases like the Marian dogmas, there isnt anything in the Patristic sources that contradict them. A silence on the teaching does noy disprove or prove it.

Literally the only core argument here is one that presupposes the Fathers contradict one another, which is of course not shown how this is the case at all. Anyone who studies the early fathers can surely tell they are different but it is simply sufficient that on the broad, they agree such as on the sacraments, salvation, scripture, tradition, free will and the doctrines of God.

Second, the post ignores the fact that one can just simply use the development of doctrine argument, and this in itself is evident in Church History. The question is, do the later developments stem as a natural consequence of that which is before? If not, then the post have a point but this is not shown.