Greg wrote:

Likewise, I don't think it is any objection to the Roman Catholic position on papal infallibility that they don't think that everything a pope says is infallible. "The doctrine of papal infallibility" is a name of a doctrine, not an isolated and exhaustive description of the Catholic position on the matter.

I should have mentioned this earlier - the problem with the doctrine of infallibility is that it goes hand in hand with the doctrine of papal primacy. I should have seen this when you retreated to infallibility about "statements".

When you take papal primacy and infallibility together, you should see why every non-Catholic has a problem with this. I have stated the problems. Since you are not making any attempt to defend it from the scriptures, I take it that we are in agreement that it's unscriptural.

Greg wrote:

Munificentissimus Deus was not promulgated simultaneously with a council but is one of the uncontroverted cases of a pope speaking ex cathedra.

Uncontroverted? Wikipedia says, "Following the example of Pope Pius IX, who canvassed Catholic bishops before proclaiming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Pius XII asked all bishops for their opinion." How is this different from a council?

And the Marian dogmas are the prime example of a bad fruit of papal proclamations and of Catholic Church itself in recent times. Bad because scripturally indefensible.

Greg wrote:

Perhaps the Vatican I fathers thought the doctrine was true and would clarify the extent to which Catholics should assent to certain teachings. That is a less uncharitable ascription of motive, so by the principle of charity we should aspire to understand the teaching in light of it.

I'm sure you would be as charitable about the Council of Trent too - they only dealt with truth, nothing to do with counter-Reformation. However, in Christian terms, truth is that which is scriptural. Where is papal infallibility in the scriptures? People think all sorts of things true, the question is how defensible it is.

And motives are seen in the historical and political context. You evidently refuse to see historical and political context to the behavior of Catholic Church. There's possibly a dogma about it.

Greg wrote:

You might, of course, think the Marian dogmas unimportant, but your views aren't at issue.

You're right. In the same way, I don't care about the pope's views or the dogmas of Catholic Church. Their views become a problem when they claim to be speaking for Christianity. There the scripture would be the measure, but they have elected dogmas to have no measure but themselves.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

seigneur wrote:

However, in Christian terms, truth is that which is scriptural.

​I think that this a Protestant position. It would be rejected by Orthodox, Catholics, and some Anglicans. At the very least, many Christians would question whether all Christian doctrines are explicitly set out in the Scripture.

At the very least, many Christians, including some Catholics, reject the idea of papal infallibility. How are we to settle this, if not by scripture? Are there other sources of truth Christians can agree on? What are those other sources?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

They might note that it is Christ who is the Christian revelation, not the Scripture.

Christ as revealed somewhere else than in the Bible? If you don't mean the biblical Christ, then how are you sure you mean Christ at all?

seigneur wrote:

At the very least, many Christians, including some Catholics, reject the idea of papal infallibility. How are we to settle this, if not by scripture? Are there other sources of truth Christians can agree on? What are those other sources?

​I'm not a Catholic. I'm not sure I'm a Christian, but I lean Orthodox. I'm not sure it is correct to frame things in terms of Christians agreeing, rather than what is correct or what seems most correct. Anyway, the other sources are the Fathers, including the Apostolic Fathers; the Councils of the Church; Church tradition; and historical witnesses to the early Church. 

Christ as revealed somewhere else than in the Bible? If you don't mean the biblical Christ, then how are you sure you mean Christ at all?

Because there are other sources to early Christian belief. Why would you think the Scripture is the only source of these beliefs?

Alexander wrote:

seigneur wrote:

What remains to be settled is not how Christians could agree on a particular issue, but what's the Christian source of knowledge that settles things, preferably each and every thing. That source doesn't seem to be the pope, this much is pretty clear.

Well, how about "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth"? That sums up the locus of authority for most Catholics.

Why do you say this by quoting scripture? Maybe because scripture has authority?

But the fuller quote is, "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Here, the pillar and ground of the truth is the house of God, specifically the church that Paul was writing to, which was not Rome.

There are two usages of the word church in NT. First, as the metaphorical bride of Christ (as in Revelation). Second, any particular congregation. Neither can appropriate truth from Christ and God, only reflect it. And how do we know if they reflect it? By scripture.

You quote the verse as if this quote, apparently equating truth with the church, were the only equation of truth found in scripture. It of course isn't. Truth is equated to Christ in e.g. John 14:6 and we are to worship God in spirit and truth in John 4:24. By what reasoning would a church or even the Church matter more?

Alexander wrote:

Relating to our earlier discussion, one function of the Pope is to provide an authority within the Church to be a "final word" when necessary - like Len Goodman in Strictly Come Dancing, he gets the "tie-breaking vote". That certainly seems to be the role indicated by the well known paraphrasing of Augustine: "Rome has spoken, the matter is finished". As is made clear by the earlier linked documents from Vatican I, the Pope has quite a bit of authority even ignoring papal infallibility, and this is one example - the Holy See is "where the buck stops".

This would apply if the tie-breaking is necessary. Historically, it was not always necessary, and it was occasionally so badly abused by Rome that it was hotly contested. And at times Rome was incapable of exercising any meaningful authority, when there parallel popes and antipopes for example.

In the first Christian millennium, the pope's position was at best described as "primus inter pares" and even that caused trouble. What was the reason to hanker for better titles? Any scriptural reason? Any other good reason?

Alexander wrote:

Luther claimed to set up scripture against Popes and councils, but in fact he could only set up his interpretation of scripture against that of the Pope and councils.

As opposed to the pope and councils who set up what against Luther? Scripture or their interpretation of scripture?

In fact, Luther set up against popes their abject denial of scripture, insofar as the indulgences debacle was concerned. The matter was so clear that most of the religious community fell away from the pope, except in Italy, and only with war and political manipulation did the pope win the southern half of Europe back.

Alexander wrote:

Also worth noting: the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession includes, but is far from exclusive to, "the Roman papacy" (as opposed to some other papacy?). Again, you only show your own ignorance of the teachings at issue by claiming such an equivalence.

I freely admit my ignorance of many details of Roman doctrines. It's because in my research of those doctrines I have found them to be unscriptural and illogical in such broad strokes that there's no necessity to go into details.

Alexander wrote:

Regardless, Catholics are famous for (1) the denial of sola scriptura, and (2) the belief that the Church was founded by Christ who promised guidance by the Holy Spirit in its teaching (which, if you demand Scriptural backup, is found pretty explicitly in passages like John 16:12-13, among others) so it is amusing that you bother to ask "how could anyone believe in a religious authority other than scripture?" in a debate about Catholicism.

I fully accept scriptural backup. It's a notable feature in the Bible that it never speaks about Catholicism. And never about the church as a mind-controlling Borg to whom to submit without question. Instead, it speaks about churches as congregations where every believer must carefully discern the spirits both in the outside world and internally. Any comment to this?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

seigneur wrote:

However, in Christian terms, truth is that which is scriptural.

​I think that this a Protestant position. It would be rejected by Orthodox, Catholics, and some Anglicans. At the very least, many Christians would question whether all Christian doctrines are explicitly set out in the Scripture.

There the scripture would be the measure, but they have elected dogmas to have no measure but themselves.​

 This view of the Bible as the Christian Koran is certainly held by many Protestants, but I don't think it is held by the Orthodox or Catholics or some Protestants. All these Christians have the greatest reverence for the Scriptures, but I don't think it is quite correct from their perspective to see the Scripture as the centre of their faith as it seems to be for many Protestants. They might note that it is Christ who is the Christian revelation, not the Scripture.

Honestly, even many non-Anglican protestants are at least ambivalent about "sola scriptura". Lutherans will often go for it when it suits them, but typically they see the rule of faith as at least having a strong probable weight; they often appeal to it, for instance, when the issue of infant baptism comes up. Similar things might be said for Methodists; Wesley himself was a high church Anglican, and quotes that famous rule of St. Vincent favorably.