# Catholics / Infallible Magisterium



## Scott (Sep 4, 2007)

Does anyone have any quotes from Catholic scholars or authorities to the effect that Catholics have a fallible belief in an infallible magisterium?


----------



## Scott (Sep 4, 2007)

BTW, I am coming at this from a response to the Catholic claim that the protestant position is weak because we do not have an inspired list of the books of the canon. Sproul and others have suggested that protestant have a fallible list of infallible books. Catholics pounce on that. I have this excerpt from Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, which I think is helpful:


> The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. *Catholic scholars admit*, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement of their church is true.


Anyway, I am looking for some sources of Catholic scholars who admit their position.


----------



## DTK (Sep 4, 2007)

Scott said:


> BTW, I am coming at this from a response to the Catholic claim that the protestant position is weak because we do not have an inspired list of the books of the canon. Sproul and others have suggested that protestant have a fallible list of infallible books. Catholics pounce on that. I have this excerpt from Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, which I think is helpful:
> 
> 
> > The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. *Catholic scholars admit*, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement of their church is true.
> ...



I'm not sure that you're going to find a source that states it the way you've proposed. Their old encyclopedia does admit the following...

*Catholic Encyclopedia:* It is only in connexion with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises; that is to say, when we speak of the Church’s infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called active as distinguished from passive infallibility. *We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching.* This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. _Catholic Encyclopedia_, Vol. VII, Infallibility (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 790,1st-2nd column.

DTK


----------

