Paul Touvier & The SSPX

[Vetus Ordo]

The NT calls the Church the "Pillar and Foundation of Truth."

And the Church is our pillar, inasmuch as it holds fast to God's word. The same way the Synagogue was.

God's word, though, is and always will be the definitive criterion of truth.

Check Irenaeus in his famous treatise Against Heresies (3.1.1.) who unambiguously proclaims this empowering truth: "We have learned from no others the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures to be be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Against a typical objection raised by those who would rather place their trust in men, rather than God, Irenaeus criticizes those who "...accuse these Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition" (3.2.1). This shows clearly that he not only believed in the perspicuity of Scripture, but also the sufficiency of the literal hermeneutic, apart from tradition, to understand what the Scriptures are teaching. This is the exact same paradigm of the Old Testament.

Christ says that the scribes and pharisees sit on the "chair of Moses." He follows this up by instructing his followers to "All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do." Both of these seem to imply that the OT temple and NT church has real, God-derived authority to command the obedience of individuals. I'm not sure how one can say that these institutions were never intended to be infallible.

The OT Church was a God given authority that commanded obedience of individuals, the same way the NT Church is. But it certainly wasn't infallible. Christ, quoting God's word time and again, corrected them many a time all throughout the Gospels. The NT Church is is no superior position to the OT Church, except in the content of its teaching. The claim to infallibility is spurious.

[An aspiring Thomist]

If the Magisterium is merely a suggestion, but need not in and of itself be obeyed merely because it is Magisterium, then it is not really a teaching authority (as opposed to say, a guy on a street corner, who may be absolutely correct if he tells you not to commit adultery, but the authority derives from what is being said rather than who is saying it).

Okay so does a bishop have authority of himself to teach his flock? Is his teaching authoritative or not? Yes it is, unless you reject Church teaching. Ah but his authoritative teaching does not need "in and of itself be obeyed merely because it is Magisterium"/authoritative if it is false/dangerous. But how do you determine the bishops authoritative teaching is wrong? You go to a higher authority. Note that does not make you the authority. Otherwise, if a bishop teaches against scripture you couldn't contradict him unless the Pope did or something.

Hence, we see there is a type of authority which is true authority but can be wrong and may be contradicted by a higher authority. Furthermore, that higher authority can be appealed to by you without making yourself the authority.

You cannot put the Magisterium to an independent test to figure out whether it is true or good, and only then, after passing the test, submit to it.  As I've said countless times before, that makes you, and not the Magisterium, the real authority.

Well, there are true authorities in the Church which are given the benefit of the doubt unless evidence to the contrary comes out. This is a fact. Now, if we are talking about an infallible authority then obviously it must be obeyed and you can't appeal to another authority, even an infallible one.

If obeying the Magisterium could possibly lead one to hell, then the Church is not by nature an infallible means of salvation, but only an accidental help, just like Protestant groups.

Okay, so I don't deny but distinguish the premise: I disagree with you what "Magisterium" is here. I think it's just infallible teaching at least with regards to doctrine. We can put laws to the side right now for simplicity. I think it's just the Extraordinary or Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Explain WHY the Pope must always teach when he teaches authoritatively as Magisterium as you term it. Why can't he teach with a lower authority? Don't say that if he taught with a lower authority then we could disagree with him and would be final authorities. That's stupid because he could just not teach at all (and we could appeal to Tradition without being final authorities against heretics) but the Church would still be an infallible means of salvation. In fact most people never heard of current papal teaching back in the day, except when there was an Ecumenical Council or something. Furthermore, though you don't deny it, the Church is a means of salvation for many other reasons besides papal teaching. So I would say not all papal teaching is an infallible means to salvation but only if it's infallible. Now, the idea of infallibly safe teaching is fine but I don't see a priori way all papal teaching must fall under that category for the CHURCH to be an infallible means of salvation. You will have a hard time proving it with Tradition and Scripture.

But this is just an exercise in special pleading.  If you can question Pope Francis, you can likewise question "past Church, Scriptural and Traditional" authorities which makes them, in fact, not authorities either.  Which is, of course, exactly what I am doing and exactly what should be done.

So do you admit your understanding of authority means that all authority is void except for current papal teaching? Yes, Augustine can be questioned. But not a consensus of Church Fathers etc (see Vatican I). Sometimes scripture is unclear which is why we need an authority to interpret it (Tradition and Church). However sometimes it is clear.

But let's face it; this has happened many times in the past, whether trads care to admit it or not.  The Church flip-flopped on geocentrism, usury, and EENS.  The game was up a long time ago.

Hm geocentrism isn't a problem for me unless it's false and an infallible authority taught it. But... if that happened then it's a problem for you too since you believe in the same infallible modes of Church teaching and so on that I believe. You just happen to add the notion of infallibly safe stuff and so forth. I suppose older generations of Catholics would never think such high authorities could be wrong, but they thought that in a similar way in which no one thought the Great Western schism was possible. Aka just speculation.

EENS isn't much of a problem in my opinion. Again, only if an "infallible" authority got it wrong would it be a problem for me. But then it would be a problem for you as well.

I don't know much about the usury problem. Again though, the problem for me is only insurmountable if an infallible authority is wrong....which would be for you too.

I suppose you are also saying understanding of doctrine can change. Okay but see Vatican I:

We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

So our understanding of EENS is different than it was before, contrary to the Church's assertion that Her understanding of dogmas cannot change.

Do you mean deepened or contradiction??? Some of what your saying almost makes it sound like you don't think infallible teaching is infallible. By Church do you mean the authority which is infallible or infallibly safe?


Okay so summarizing my counter argument:

1. There are true authorities in the Church which can contradict infallible authorities.

2. An inferior can contradict a superior on the basses of an higher authority without becoming his own authority.

3. There has been given no compelling argument given for why the Pope can never speak to the Church with an authority less than previous Pope's, Tradition, or Scripture authority. (Can't he speak like a bishop does in his diocese? But his just happens to be the whole world in a way)

4. There is evidence of contradiction between certain levels of Papal magisterium and infallible authority.

5. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that a Pope can speak authoritatively in such a way that higher authorities may be appealed to.

I suppose another issue to be discussed is that you seem to say the Magisterium as you term it is the sole final authority, while I would say Scripture, Tradition, and infallible Magisterium are all in a sense final authorities which never contradict each other but fill in where the other lacks support. None of them contradict each other. But I can in fact appeal to Scripture to contradict my bishop just like I could appeal to papal teaching or Tradition. And if I'm right on a Pope being able to speak in a way analogous to another bishop, then I could appeal to another final authority since he himself is not acting as a final authority.

[An aspiring Thomist]

There's experience.  Faith will allow you to experience something profound, something much beyond the ordinary human way of life and perception.  But this is shot down as "Modernism", by trads, anyway.

At least try to understand why trans are skeptical of this kind of talk. To a certain extent I would agree with it. But through baptism haven't we all been brought into the faith? And in our youth and into adulthood if we kept the faith what kind of experience did we have? So, at the very least true faith won't yield mystical experiences necessarily if that's what your getting at. Certainly if you grow in faith and charity you will experience the gifts of the Holy Ghost and so on. In fact I wouldn't hesitate to say that I have experienced the Holy Ghost moving me to pray and indeed the consolidations of mental prayer are sweet.

[John Lamb]

Despite being a bit forceful in trying to put his point across, Quare is essentially correct in his assessment.

The Roman church plainly blew it when it comes to claims of infallibility. Or to use Greg's famous expression taken from card games back when we were all at FE, "they overplayed their hand." Vatican II and the subsequent magisterium of the conciliar popes is the latest example. Undoubtedly, this is a sobering realization but it must be met if you are to make proper sense of the situation.

However, a fallible Church is not a useless Church. The argument that the Church is only profitable, or worthy of being believed and obeyed, if invested with infallibility is spurious. The OT Church was a vehicle of salvation and it wasn't infallible. The same with the NT Church.

God alone is infallible and His word will continue to guide us, and purge us, until the end of time.

This is heresy. The pope is indeed infallible when he meets the conditions defined by Vatican I. The papacy has a stunningly perfect record for condemning / avoiding heresy down the ages.

Compare it with the See of Constantinople:

The See of Constantinople . . . has a long history of heterodoxy, and she extended her patriarchal jurisdiction via gross caesaropapism. The see was polluted by three Arians (Eusebios, Eudoxios, Demophilos), one Semi-Arian (Macedonios I), one Nestorian (Nestorios), five Monophysites (Acacios, Phravitas, Euphemios, Timothy I, Anthimos), six Monothelites (Sergios I, Pyrrhos, Paul II, Peter, John VI), and seven Iconoclasts (Anastasios, Constantine II, Nicetas I, Paul IV, Theodotos I Cassiteras, Anthony I Kassymatas, John VII Lecanomantos), one Calvinist (Cyril I Lukaris)–though some idiosyncratic commentators dispute the charge of Calvinism against the latter, who was murdered after he occupied the throne seven times—and one Freemason who declared Anglican orders to be valid (Meletios IV Metaxakis). The other three sees have similar records, and they often servilely followed the policy of Constantinople. By the standards of the Orthodox themselves, the see has had even more heretical patriarchs: one anti-Palamite (John XIV Kalekas) and more than five Catholics (John XI Bekkos, Joseph II, Metrophanes II, Gregory III Mammas, Cyril II Kontares, and many others, according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry "Greek Church"). Many of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were not merely desirous of reunion with the Catholic Church, but confessed the dogmas of the Catholic Church to be true.

Name one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".

[An aspiring Thomist]

Vetus Ordo is a Calvinist of sorts so he'll consider justification through faith and works heretical I'm sure.

[Mono no aware]

Name one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".

Modernism.

[GloriaPatri]

Name one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".

Modernism.

Also, people who a priori believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church will define any of its teachings as "orthodox" and anything opposed to those teachings as "heterodox."

The argument seems to basically boil down to "The Church teaches only true things because it is infallible. And the Church is infallible because it only teaches true things" which is quite circular (and not even true, as an institution could conceivably teach only true things while not being infallible).

[An aspiring Thomist]

Name one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".

Modernism.

Also, people who a priori believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church will define any of its teachings as "orthodox" and anything opposed to those teachings as "heterodox."

The argument seems to basically boil down to "The Church teaches only true things because it is infallible. And the Church is infallible because it only teaches true things" which is quite circular (and not even true, as an institution could conceivably teach only true things while not being infallible).

No one makes that argument. Some might say that the consistent teaching or orthodoxy of Rome is a testament to her claims, but that's only probabilistic. The main argument or reason for thinking the Church is infallible is that God revealed it and founded it. Obviously we would then need to look at that claim and part of it is faith which has a subjective component. Ultimately we can only use highly good probabilistic objective arguments for the faith for those who don't believe. Denying things like the Resurrection, shrowd of Turin, our Lady of Guadalupe, and our Lady of Fatima seems to me to be intellectually dishonest once all of the evidence is put on the table.

[Vetus Ordo]

Name one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".

Modernism.

Also, people who a priori believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church will define any of its teachings as "orthodox" and anything opposed to those teachings as "heterodox."

The argument seems to basically boil down to "The Church teaches only true things because it is infallible. And the Church is infallible because it only teaches true things" which is quite circular (and not even true, as an institution could conceivably teach only true things while not being infallible).

Obviously.

There's no real mechanism to verify any teaching other than Rome approving of it or not. The entire epistemological system depends exclusively on Rome's official pronouncements and practices.

In any given case, infallibility is not an a priori requirement to hold authority or to teach the truth. The Pharisees and the scribes sat on the seat of Moses with authority but were plainly fallible teachers.

[Vetus Ordo]

The papacy has a stunningly perfect record for condemning / avoiding heresy down the ages.

You haven't been awake for the past 60 years, have you?

This should be proof enough that the paradigm that you're defending doesn't work in real life.

[Quaremerepulisti]

It would be nice if you actually attempted to address the arguments made instead of coming up with "gotcha" but easily refuted counterexamples.  (Sadly this is par for the course on SD.)

If the Magisterium is merely a suggestion, but need not in and of itself be obeyed merely because it is Magisterium, then it is not really a teaching authority (as opposed to say, a guy on a street corner, who may be absolutely correct if he tells you not to commit adultery, but the authority derives from what is being said rather than who is saying it).

Of course this is correct.  There is no real argument against it.  It has to do with the definition of what "authority" actually is.  All you can really do is play word games.

Okay so does a bishop have authority of himself to teach his flock? Is his teaching authoritative or not? Yes it is, unless you reject Church teaching. Ah but his authoritative teaching does not need "in and of itself be obeyed merely because it is Magisterium"/authoritative if it is false/dangerous. But how do you determine the bishops authoritative teaching is wrong? You go to a higher authority. Note that does not make you the authority. Otherwise, if a bishop teaches against scripture you couldn't contradict him unless the Pope did or something.

Hence, we see there is a type of authority which is true authority but can be wrong and may be contradicted by a higher authority. Furthermore, that higher authority can be appealed to by you without making yourself the authority.

No, a lower "authority" which presumes to contravene or contradict a higher authority is no authority at all. It is operating outside its proper sphere of authority.  It may be indeed a raw attempted exercise of power, but not of authority, properly speaking.

You cannot put the Magisterium to an independent test to figure out whether it is true or good, and only then, after passing the test, submit to it.  As I've said countless times before, that makes you, and not the Magisterium, the real authority.

Also true.  Again it has to do with the very definition of "authority".

Well, there are true authorities in the Church which are given the benefit of the doubt unless evidence to the contrary comes out. This is a fact. Now, if we are talking about an infallible authority then obviously it must be obeyed and you can't appeal to another authority, even an infallible one.

This is again no real authority at all.  True authority demands obedience even when there is evidence to the contrary.  Of course everyone who contradicts Church authority on anything does so because he has, or thinks he has, evidence to the contrary.  And this statement quite destroys just about the entirety of the traditionalist position.  Evidence to the contrary has been found that the pre-Vatican II positions on religious liberty, ecumenism, death penalty, etc., were wrong.  Ergo.  Now you might not think such evidence is there, but I do, and I have the post-Vatican II Popes backing me up.  In fact there is also plenty of scientific evidence that monogenism and special creation of man are wrong.  Etc.

If obeying the Magisterium could possibly lead one to hell, then the Church is not by nature an infallible means of salvation, but only an accidental help, just like Protestant groups.

Again true (almost self-evidently), so you equivocate on what "Magisterium" means here.

Okay, so I don't deny but distinguish the premise: I disagree with you what "Magisterium" is here. I think it's just infallible teaching at least with regards to doctrine. We can put laws to the side right now for simplicity. I think it's just the Extraordinary or Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Explain WHY the Pope must always teach when he teaches authoritatively as Magisterium as you term it. Why can't he teach with a lower authority?

Alright, let me rephrase.  If obeying Church authority at any level on anything could possibly lead one to hell, then the Church is not by nature an infallible means of salvation, but only an accidental help, just like Protestant groups.  If the Church is by nature an infallible means of salvation, that means that everything it does must lead to salvation and that everything it commands must be holy, and not just some things.

Don't say that if he taught with a lower authority then we could disagree with him and would be final authorities.

Well of course I'll say that.  If we disagree, who is making the final call?  We, or him?

That's stupid because he could just not teach at all (and we could appeal to Tradition without being final authorities against heretics) but the Church would still be an infallible means of salvation.

That is illogical.  There is a difference between him not teaching at all and him teaching something evil.

Now, the idea of infallibly safe teaching is fine but I don't see a priori way all papal teaching must fall under that category for the CHURCH to be an infallible means of salvation.

I can prove it from logic.  Again,

If obeying Church authority at any level on anything could possibly lead one to hell, then the Church is not by nature an infallible means of salvation, but only an accidental help, just like Protestant groups.

So do you admit your understanding of authority means that all authority is void except for current papal teaching? Yes, Augustine can be questioned. But not a consensus of Church Fathers etc (see Vatican I). Sometimes scripture is unclear which is why we need an authority to interpret it (Tradition and Church). However sometimes it is clear.

No, the issue is that the Church does not in reality have the authority She claims to have.  Her pronouncements are just mile-markers, waystations if you will, on the road to a progressively and ever-deeper understanding of things which sometimes contradicts what went before.  All the anti-Modernist fulminations do nothing whatsoever to disprove the fact that this is an empirical fact; it has happened and is happening.

I suppose you are also saying understanding of doctrine can change.

Of course, because it has.  It doesn't matter who or what you cite.  There is no arguing against an empirical fact.

Do you mean deepened or contradiction???

You can always justify any contradiction by saying it's a "deeper" understanding.  We can jettison monogenism on the basis of a "deeper" understanding of original sin which no longer requires a literal Adam, so why insist on it when the scientific evidence shows otherwise?  Just like we jettisoned geocentrism on the basis of a "deeper" understanding of Scriptural inerrancy.  Or usury with a "deeper" understanding of economics.  Or the death penalty with a "deeper" understanding of human dignity.  Or opposition to religious indifference/ecumenism with a "deeper" understanding of how the Holy Spirit actually operates in souls.

Okay so summarizing my counter argument:

1. There are true authorities in the Church which can contradict infallible authorities.

2. An inferior can contradict a superior on the basses of an higher authority without becoming his own authority.

3. There has been given no compelling argument given for why the Pope can never speak to the Church with an authority less than previous Pope's, Tradition, or Scripture authority. (Can't he speak like a bishop does in his diocese? But his just happens to be the whole world in a way)

4. There is evidence of contradiction between certain levels of Papal magisterium and infallible authority.

5. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that a Pope can speak authoritatively in such a way that higher authorities may be appealed to.

This is fallacious since you conflate personal authority with written authority.  If the highest personal authority in the Church (which is the Pope) can contradict infallible written authority (Acts of Councils, etc.) the Church is in essence no different from a Protestant group.  Let's rephrase 1. to read: There are true authorities in the Church which can contradict God.  God is certainly an infallible authority, if there is one.  See the problem?

[GloriaPatri]

Vetus, I have a question(s) for you that I hope isn't too personal: If the Church, institutional or otherwise, is not an infallible teaching authority then how do you personally "know" which books of Scripture were accepted by the early Church led by the apostles? And even if we grant that the canon passed down to us is the authentic one, how do you know that you're interpreting scripture in a way that does not lead you to heresy and/or hell?

[John Lamb]

Name one heresy that the Roman Church has been infected with other than pretend heresies like "Filioquism".

Modernism.

The Roman Church condemned Modernism and has never taught it.

The argument seems to basically boil down to "The Church teaches only true things because it is infallible. And the Church is infallible because it only teaches true things" which is quite circular (and not even true, as an institution could conceivably teach only true things while not being infallible).

No, the argument goes like this:

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,[55] cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the christian religion."[56]

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: "The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."[57]

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."[58]

3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.

4. It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the Churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic See those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .

5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circumstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion of the Churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by special synods, sometimes by taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God's help, they knew to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the apostolic traditions.

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."[60]

7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.

8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

The papacy has a stunningly perfect record for condemning / avoiding heresy down the ages.

You haven't been awake for the past 60 years, have you?

This should be proof enough that the paradigm that you're defending doesn't work in real life.

Look at the record of all the other churches down history. None has anywhere near the same pedigree for orthodoxy as the Roman Church. The past 60 years has seen the Roman Church hold to the Christian condemnation of contraception and divorce where every other church in the world has fallen into apostasy on this point, as well as the Roman Church's magisterium being miraculously saved from corruption despite the presence of so many heterodox theologians and bishops.

[John Lamb]

Alright, let me rephrase.  If obeying Church authority at any level on anything could possibly lead one to hell, then the Church is not by nature an infallible means of salvation, but only an accidental help, just like Protestant groups.  If the Church is by nature an infallible means of salvation, that means that everything it does must lead to salvation and that everything it commands must be holy, and not just some things.

Indeed, but you must make the distinction between what the Church commands & teaches, and what her ministers command & teach, because the Church as a whole is indefectible and infallible, but her ministers are not. Just because a parish priest, a bishop, or even a pope does something evil or teaches something false, does not mean that the Church does something evil or teaches something false.

No, the issue is that the Church does not in reality have the authority She claims to have.  Her pronouncements are just mile-markers, waystations if you will, on the road to a progressively and ever-deeper understanding of things which sometimes contradicts what went before.  All the anti-Modernist fulminations do nothing whatsoever to disprove the fact that this is an empirical fact; it has happened and is happening.

This really is downright Modernist heresy, and I'm glad you're already aware of it.

[Vetus Ordo]

Vetus, I have a question(s) for you that I hope isn't too personal: If the Church, institutional or otherwise, is not an infallible teaching authority then how do you personally "know" which books of Scripture were accepted by the early Church led by the apostles? And even if we grant that the canon passed down to us is the authentic one, how do you know that you're interpreting scripture in a way that does not lead you to heresy and/or hell?

The same way we know which OT books are part of Scripture. There's sound historical testimony. No infallible authority of the Sanhedrin or of the Scribes was required in and of itself. God ensured that the Church, both in the Old and New Testaments, would eventually recognize her Master's voice and compile the texts. Of course, there are intrinsic reasons for canonicity within the texts themselves (content, time frame, coherence, apostolicity, etc.) but ultimately God's people are able to recognize God's voice. God is not a mere abstract philosophical concept but an active agent in our lives: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:27)

As far as interpreting Scripture is concerned, much is made of this matter without sufficient reason, it seems just for the sake of apologetics. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence that reads the NT is capable of recognizing the fundamentals of faith and salvation. It's not a puzzle: Christ did not come to deliver us an obscure message that needs an infallible authority to develop it, and "clarify" it, over centuries without end. The Christian faith is simple and its preaching is the very reason why the NT was written down to being with: "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31).

Secondly, it seems to me that this objection has little ground to stand on in real life. It's not like the Roman Church is infallibly interpreting Scripture for us. How many infallibly interpreted verses do you have in more than two thousand years of history? A handful? Not much. In real life, Catholic theologians debate Scripture as much any other Christian theologians. For instance, how many more centuries will it have to pass until Rome infallibly decides the controversy over predestination between Molinism and Thomism/Augustinianism? Hasn't the Church a charism of infallibility in order to be able to decipher the Scriptures unlike the rest of us? Apparently, Rome has as much of a problem in infallibly interpreting scriptural record as the Arminian and Calvinist schools in Protestant tradition, with the difference that the latter don't pretend to infallible in and of themselves.

Finally, Irenaeus himself would object to the "scriptural skepticism" so prevalent in modern apologetics:

Against a typical objection raised by those who would rather place their trust in men, rather than God, Irenaeus criticizes those who "...accuse these Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition" (3.2.1). This shows clearly that he not only believed in the perspicuity of Scripture, but also the sufficiency of the literal hermeneutic, apart from tradition, to understand what the Scriptures are teaching. This is the exact same paradigm of the Old Testament.