Protestants Accept the Infallibility of the Catholic Church's Teaching


#21

But if protestants believe Catholic teachings are never wrong, why are they still protestants?


#22

Some fathers accepted them some didn’t but that isn’t the point. One does not have to accept the supposed infallibility or authority of your church to agree w/ the canon it accepts minus a few books.

They are either part of the canon of inspired books or they were mistakenly added to the canon at some point. I believe they were mistakenly added to the canon of inspired books. From my point of view there is no other way of stating it other than by using the word “added”.

In context the “we” would be me and a Catholic, assuming he accepts the trinity.


#23

Of course they do. The context of the bible is the Church so by accepting these texts as inspired, they implicitly put their faith in the Catholic Church since no where is there a list of what books belong in the Canon.

Whenever I have a religious discussion w/ protestants I always ask them to prove to me which books should be in the bible when they realize that our bibles do not have the same number of books. They usually they give the normal nonsense then I refer them to 21 Reasons to Reject Sola Scipura and they are generally speechless and try to forget about it since they are not fond of Christian history, since its a Catholic one.


#24

Of course it is.

Anything we need to know about the Trinity is in the Word…all else is mere speculation.

That is why JW’s do not believe in the Trinity.

Actually, it is not.

They also do not believe that Jesus is God. Is that also because the Scriptures do not teach that?


#25

Traditional, high-church Protestants would say that we accept the consensus of the past except where we are thoroughly convinced that it is wrong, and the more ancient and universal the consensus, the less likely it is to be wrong. This thoroughly accounts for all the phenomena you have described and obviously does not entail accepting that the communion of Christians attached to the bishop of Rome is always going to be right in its doctrinal formulations.

Edwin


#26

This seems like a very weak argument to me. It’s a big loophole for all sorts of beliefs.


#27

Please show us where the Trinity is explicitly taught in the Bible? That means that you need to provide passages of scripture that specifically say that there are three persons in one God.

I don’t believe you can do it.:shrug:


#28

Then, if you are a “Bible Only Christian”, then please show me passages of scripture that tell us specifically what books do and do not belong in the canon of inspired scripture.

They are either part of the canon of inspired books or they were mistakenly added to the canon at some point. I believe they were mistakenly added to the canon of inspired books. From my point of view there is no other way of stating it other than by using the word “added”.

And of course you are entitled to your opinion. However, you have no authoritative basis upon which to base your opinion. Furthermore, if, as many n-Cs do, you wish to base your acceptance or rejection of any given writing as inspired canon upon a consensus, I think you will find that the historical consensus favors the 73 book canon and not the modern post reformation edited version.

In context the “we” would be me and a Catholic, assuming he accepts the trinity.

Okay… was just trying to be sure I had understood you correctly. :slight_smile:


#29

Originally Posted by Pwrlftr
No, but we do believe that the blind pig will in fact find the acorn occasionally though.

Watch out! Scott Hahn once said the same thing about Catholicism (regarding artificial birth control), and look at him now.

He said this in his conversion story, which you can listen to here:
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/searchprog.asp?pgnu=4&T1=scott%20hahn

His Journey to the Catholic Faith
3/28/2001


#30

None needed on my behalf. While your argument ignores the fact that the Catholic Church preceded the Protestant ones by 1,500 years (otherwise, what was Luther breaking from and the Reformers “reforming”?), I don’t think using a common cliche is uncharitable in any fashion.


#31

And in my view your argument is the strongest counterargument to my proposal, Edwin.

There are two problems I see with your argument, however:

  1. Protestants are not in unanimous doctrinal agreement on anything outside the elements of the Nicene Creed, and even there I’m stretching because some have lately eschewed even that for the Apostle’s Creed. One would think if there were agreement on where the Catholic Church went wrong, it would show up in shared doctrine.

  2. It ignores the effects of the Counter-Reformation, which addressed many of the abuses the Reformers claimed to have led to the split. So if the Catholic Church was right in the views of Protestants on such matters as the New Testament and the Nicene Creed, might they not be right on the sacraments, right on Tradition, and right on Magisterium as well?

Thank you for your response.


#32

#33

Church Fathers are not Councils. Councils affirm them to be Canonical. Even St. Jerome recanted his assertion by discrediting the Deutrocanonical Books. I also like to add the Eastern Orthodox also have those books in there Bible, but they have additional books 3 Maccabees and Prayer of Prayer of Manasseh.

They are either part of the canon of inspired books or they were mistakenly added to the canon at some point. I believe they were mistakenly added to the canon of inspired books. From my point of view there is no other way of stating it other than by using the word “added”.

They were not added. These books have been used before the time of Jesus Christ. In fact in the Council of Hippo 393 AD and the Council of Carthage 397 AD affirm the 7 Deutrocanonical Books as inspired.

The Jews in the year 90 AD in the Council of Jamnia rejected Sacred Scripture which was not written in Hebrew. This Council is not binding since the Jews in Hebrew consider the Deutrocanonical Books as inspired, and they still use it to this day.

The list of the Deutrocanonical Books were also affirmed in the Council of Florence and again in the Council of Trent. The Deutrocanonical Books were part in the original King James Bible and put in the Appendix (back of the Bible). It was later remove from the Bible in late 1600s.

The Catholic Church did not add books. I had to say Martin Luther is guilting of altering the words in the Bible. He put "alone in Romans 3:28 to justify his faith alone doctrine.

In context the “we” would be me and a Catholic, assuming he accepts the trinity.

You do because the Catholic Church in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD affirmed it in combating Arianism.


#34

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.