DAVID WALTZ SAID:
Me: First, Tavard’s essay argues (with solid evidence) that the Bull Unam Sanctum, “does not…meet the requirements of Vatican Council I on infallibilty.”
i) Irrelevant. You must apply private judgment to any magisterial statement, whether fallible or infallible. The same hermeneutical considerations apply in each case.
ii) A magisterial teaching doesn’t have to be infallible to be obligatory. Different magisterial teachings involve different degrees of obligatory force.
iii) The classification of magisterial statements as fallible or infallible is, itself, a fallible interpretion. Hence, your reply only pushes the problem back a step. Tavard is not the magisterium. Tavard is having to sift the magisterium.
iv) Tavard minimized Unam sanctum because he was an ecumenist. Unam sanctam is a stumbling block to ecumenism.
However, Unam sanctam isn’t that easily disposed of. To some extent, at least, it was reaffirmed by two ecumenical councils.
v) One strategy is to argue that it was only reaffirmed in part. However, Tavard himself rejects the partitioning of magisterial statements. For him, it’s a take-it-or-leave-it affair. As he rightly points out, it’s arbitrary to say one sentence is infallible, but the next sentence is fallible. The conclusion is infallible, but the supporting argument is fallible.
“Second, for your argument to have solid import, you must demonstrate that official/infallible decrees/dogmas on faith and morals (my list, not yours) are somehow “unclear”.”
i) Produce your infallible list of infallible decrees.
ii) You must demonstrate that magisterial teaching is more perspicuous than Biblical teaching.
iii) Consider disputes over the interpretation of Vatican II.
“You do not make a “dent” by using a Bull that is not part of the corpus that needs to be judged.”
Whether or not Unam sanctam is “part of the corpus that needs to be judged,” is, itself, a value-judgment. You must apply your private judgment to that document to arrive at that classification. So you’re concealing the problem by taking a key assumption for granted, then introducing your objection further downstream.
“And third, as one who embraces “private judgment”, how does your “typical exchange” apply to me?”
You’re prevaricating. You don’t embrace private judgment in the same sense as Protestant theological method.
“Then you embrace a different form of sola scriptura than the confessional Reformers; your form would be more in line with a Socinus, than with a Calvin.”
Then you embrace a different form of Marian virginity than the Bible writers; your form (in partu/post partum) would be more in line with Gnosticism and Docetism (e.g. the Protevangelium of James, the Acts of Peter), than with a Matthew or Luke.
“Me: And they were interpreting the OT in a manner contrary at many points with the hermenutical principle you embrace.”
That’s an assertion, not an argument.
“Me: This raises two questions for me: first, when did the Catholic Church become “a schismatic church”;”
Over time. Cumulative error.
“And second, is there any church and/or individual who does not have some error in their teaching and life?”
Apostles and prophets are infallible in their teaching.
“Me: And the primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles was?”
G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.
“And what then if you disagree? Why bother studying Scripture yourself if you're going to accept the creeds or the exegesis of Calvin without reservation? Just listen to them and THEN read the Bible through that lens. It seems silly to pretend you're going to read Scripture AS IF you were going to come up with your own conclusions if you have no attention of accepting those conclusions. It's just a game of "let's see how accurate my initial instincts are".”
That’s an amusing charge considering the fact that Perry Robinson regularly accuses me of being a theological maverick who bucks Reformed tradition.
If you want a specific example, I don’t accept the Westminster Directory of Worship as my rule of worship. Try again.