Exactly, Dr. S.
My exact question was written down but was too long; the moderator read "Given the magisterial authority of Rome, what is the infallible list of the infallible teachings of the RCC?"
My reasoning was that, since RCs are always harping on Prots for not having an infallible Canon of Scr (which would be a list of infallible teachings), then Rome should be able to present one. But not just Scr is infallible for Rome; also certain RC teachings are infallible (though nobody knows which ones). So my question is just: let's play fair. You criticise me for not having sthg you don't have either.
Fr. Pacwa referred me to a document called the Enchiridion Symbolorum for that, or to Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
Afterwards, while standing in a throng of RCs around him, I identified myself as the asker of the question and asked him how to spell "Enchiridion". He told me and then I asked him if that is an infallible document. He answered in a roundabout non-responsive sort of way. I then asked him again "But it is it infallible? I ask b/c we see the Canon of Scr as our list of infall teachings; what is your list?" That was my mistake - he latched onto my comparison to Scr and said "Oh but other RC teachings are not inspired, they're just infallible."
I asked, "But what's the functional difference between those 2?"
He said, "Scr stirs the heart; reading other teachings is like reading law or the Constitution."
Since there were other RCs waiting to talk to him, I didn't press the point any further. What a pitiful reply, but I don't guess it surprised me.
Had I the chance over again, I might have been a bit more pugnacious and asked "But we're not talking about what stirs the heart; I agree 100% that Scr stirs the heart better than canon law, believe me! I'm asking about authority - if a command to act/believe a certain way/thing is infallible, the question of whether it's 'inspired' is beside the point. So is it infallible or is it not, this Ench Sym?"
If he had said no, then thank you very much. Now please stop trying to act like that's a good point in your debates and in your talking about Prot-ism.
If he had said yes, then I ask him where the Ench Sym was declared to be infallible. I ask him by whom. I ask him when it was so declared. I also ask him how he knows that list is infallibly defined. Finally, I ask him if the Ench Sym is one of the infallible teachings listed in the infallible Canon of Rome (ie, the Ench Sym). He can't tell me any of that, so then thank you very much. Now please stop trying to act like that's a good point in your debates and in your talking about Prot-ism.
My exact question was written down but was too long; the moderator read "Given the magisterial authority of Rome, what is the infallible list of the infallible teachings of the RCC?"
My reasoning was that, since RCs are always harping on Prots for not having an infallible Canon of Scr (which would be a list of infallible teachings), then Rome should be able to present one. But not just Scr is infallible for Rome; also certain RC teachings are infallible (though nobody knows which ones). So my question is just: let's play fair. You criticise me for not having sthg you don't have either.
Fr. Pacwa referred me to a document called the Enchiridion Symbolorum for that, or to Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.
Afterwards, while standing in a throng of RCs around him, I identified myself as the asker of the question and asked him how to spell "Enchiridion". He told me and then I asked him if that is an infallible document. He answered in a roundabout non-responsive sort of way. I then asked him again "But it is it infallible? I ask b/c we see the Canon of Scr as our list of infall teachings; what is your list?" That was my mistake - he latched onto my comparison to Scr and said "Oh but other RC teachings are not inspired, they're just infallible."
I asked, "But what's the functional difference between those 2?"
He said, "Scr stirs the heart; reading other teachings is like reading law or the Constitution."
Since there were other RCs waiting to talk to him, I didn't press the point any further. What a pitiful reply, but I don't guess it surprised me.
Had I the chance over again, I might have been a bit more pugnacious and asked "But we're not talking about what stirs the heart; I agree 100% that Scr stirs the heart better than canon law, believe me! I'm asking about authority - if a command to act/believe a certain way/thing is infallible, the question of whether it's 'inspired' is beside the point. So is it infallible or is it not, this Ench Sym?"
If he had said no, then thank you very much. Now please stop trying to act like that's a good point in your debates and in your talking about Prot-ism.
If he had said yes, then I ask him where the Ench Sym was declared to be infallible. I ask him by whom. I ask him when it was so declared. I also ask him how he knows that list is infallibly defined. Finally, I ask him if the Ench Sym is one of the infallible teachings listed in the infallible Canon of Rome (ie, the Ench Sym). He can't tell me any of that, so then thank you very much. Now please stop trying to act like that's a good point in your debates and in your talking about Prot-ism.
