Can an Ecumenical Council be lost to history?

[Birdmanman]

Let no one take the following questions as an occasion to doubt or dissent from the Truth that is taught by Holy Mother Church, if you are having any issues with the Truth of the Catholic Faith, go as soon as you can to a priest and discuss those issues with him:

Hi there, wondering if anyone could help me out with 2 similar questions, and one completely unrelated question; skip the hypothetical examples if they are too lengthy.

**1. Is it possible that an Ecumenical Council, or a Canon or Article of Faith defined at an Ecumenical Council, could be entirely lost to and forgotten in history?
**
Hypothetical Example: The (pretend) Council of Trant, an Ecumenical Council, is held, and Canon 122 is defined, which is intended by all the Bishops and the Pope to be infallible and to bind the whole Church as a matter of Faith. 1 year later, an army storms every land in Christendom and destroys every written record of Canon 122 of the Council of Trant, as well as any and all written records about or pertaining to Canon 122 of the Council of Trant. Within 3 generations, the exact meaning of Canon 122 has been lost, and within 10 generations, no one remembers or considers Canon 122.
As Catholics, can we believe such a situation is possible, or is this impossible because “the gates of Hades will not overcome” Holy Mother Church?

2. Is it possible that the intended meaning of a Canon or Article of Faith defined at an Ecumenical Council can be lost to history? By translation or copyist error?

Hypothetical Example: The (pretend) Ecumenical Council of Trant is held, and Canon 122 is infallibly defined and is binding on the whole Church. Canon 122 contains a phrase in Latin that the Bishops intended to mean “One Thing”, but within 2 generations, because of new Latin scholarship or a mis-translation or copyist error, everyone thinks that it means “Another Thing”. The Magisterium of the Church thereafter remains silent on the issue of whether it means “One Thing” or “Another Thing”, and from then on almost every Catholic tacitly assumes it means “Another Thing” (except for 1 bishop in each generation who does not openly express his interpretation). 1000 years later, a new Ecumenical Council defines another Canon, which assumes that the Church teaches “One Thing” (the actual intended meaning of the Council of Trant 1000 years earlier) instead of “Another Thing”. The Church then correctly declares that Canon 122 really meant “One Thing”, even though the interpretation of the words of Canon 122, even at the time that it was made, because of copyists errors or mistranslation or sudden changing definition of words, would very heavily seem to imply to almost the entire world, even to most in the time of the Council of Trant, that it meant “Another Thing”.
As Catholics, can we believe that such a situation where the intended meaning of an infallible definition is lost to history for a limited amount of time possible?

1. Vatican I declares that anyone is anathema who “says that
   the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith”.

Would an exhaustive examination of the Infallible statements of the Popes and Ecumenical Councils, to discover that they are all indeed consistent with one another, be considered a “scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of” the Catholic Faith?

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide me with these questions.

 

[gus]

The opponents of the Church have been doing this for over a thousand years
No institution has been scutinized more than the Church.Every word gone over with a magnifing glass

So far we have held up pretty well

 

[Birdmanman]

The opponents of the Church have been doing this for over a thousand years
No institution has been scutinized more than the Church.Every word gone over with a magnifing glass

So far we have held up pretty well

thanks for reminding me; however I would be interested in seeing more works on it (something bigger and more comprehensive than Denzinger, with cross references and head-notes by subject matter and individual listings of each Canon and so forth…).

Question number 2 above is most important to me. (If the answer to Question 2 is truly an affirmative, then it seems to me (but I could certainly be wrong and the following statements should not be taken as fact or true in any way, shape, or form unless it is personally known to you to be objectively true and in real accord with the Teachings of The Church) that there can almost never be a way to practicably prove absolute contradiction between any two infallible statements made in the last 2 millennia, because the argument from “special meaning not clearly understood by the public and inadequately expressed in words”, or the argument from mistranslation, copyist error, or writing error in the original manuscript can be used…although I probably should have added the question of whether the original manuscript of an Ecumenical Council can be flawed in such a way that it is seriously misinterpreted from the actual meaning it attempted to convey).

 

[1ke]

It is not the fact that the canons are written down that makes them infallible. The council need never have written anything down. The canons could have been relayed via the bishop or delegate. A tall order considering the number of canons.

We know Paul wrote at least one other letter to Corinth that is not extant.

 

[Birdmanman]

It is not the fact that the canons are written down that makes them infallible. The council need never have written anything down. The canons could have been relayed via the bishop or delegate. A tall order considering the number of canons.

We know Paul wrote at least one other letter to Corinth that is not extant.

Thanks for responding, 1ke
So, is it possible to be bound by an infallible statement that we do not know about? In a situation like this, I assume the Holy Spirit would guide the Church so that, in future infallible statements and Magisterial acts, this “unknown infallible statement” is never taught against.

If so, could an infallible Canon be so terribly written or hard to understand, that the meaning the Council intended to convey is lost and not recovered?

 

[thistle]

Thanks for responding, 1ke
So, is it possible to be bound by an infallible statement that we do not know about? In a situation like this, I assume the Holy Spirit would guide the Church so that, in future infallible statements and Magisterial acts, this “unknown infallible statement” is never taught against.

If so, could an infallible Canon be so terribly written or hard to understand, that the meaning the Council intended to convey is lost and not recovered?

There are no infallible teachings that we don’t know about.

 

[Birdmanman]

There are no infallible teachings that we don’t know about.

Thanks for responding, Thistle!
I assume here when you say “we”, you mean the bishops and cardinals? I know I certainly don’t have memorized each of the infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church, although I do profess my belief in them when I say in the Creed “I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church”.

How did you arrive at your statement? Is this taught somewhere? I don’t mean to sound hostile to it, I’m just curious.

 

[JaKael02]

Thanks for responding, Thistle!
I assume here when you say “we”, you mean the bishops and cardinals? I know I certainly don’t have memorized each of the infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church, although I do profess my belief in them when I say in the Creed “I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church”.

How did you arrive at your statement? Is this taught somewhere? I don’t mean to sound hostile to it, I’m just curious.

Their referring to the “Deposit of Faith” given to the Church by Jesus Christ. This deposit never changes and always exists in the church. The Holy Spirit guides the process & preserves it from error. However, a proper understanding of Sacred Tradition will clear up things, I believe.

• What the first Christians first believed we still believe; what we believed today they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of revelation has remained the same.
• Faithful has not at all times nor has he always explicit consciousness of all that he believes, but his implicit belief always contains what he one day makes explicit in the profession of faith.
• The church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed.

Does this help? Thoughts? Kindly - James

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks for responding, 1ke
So, is it possible to be bound by an infallible statement that we do not know about? In a situation like this, I assume the Holy Spirit would guide the Church so that, in future infallible statements and Magisterial acts, this “unknown infallible statement” is never taught against.

If so, could an infallible Canon be so terribly written or hard to understand, that the meaning the Council intended to convey is lost and not recovered?

No one is bound by things they do not know about. God knows all and sees all, so if by your own ignorance (or innocence) you did not know something you are not supposed to know then God will not hold it against you.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If you read the canons of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils, you will see that canons from a previous Council is reaffirmed at the next. Not because they called a council means they can declare right there and then that is it Ecumenical and then say that the canons are infallible. It didn’t work that way in the First Millennium. Councils only are declared Ecumenical later on when time and the unity of the Church has proven the defined doctrine is indeed true.

 

[Birdmanman]

Their referring to the “Deposit of Faith” given to the Church by Jesus Christ. This deposit never changes and always exists in the church. The Holy Spirit guides the process & preserves it from error. However, a proper understanding of Sacred Tradition will clear up things, I believe.

• What the first Christians first believed we still believe; what we believed today they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of revelation has remained the same.
• Faithful has not at all times nor has he always explicit consciousness of all that he believes, but his implicit belief always contains what he one day makes explicit in the profession of faith.
• The church progress of dogma, progress of theology, progress to a certain extent of faith itself, but this progress does not consist in the addition of fresh information nor change of ideas. What is believed has always been believed, but in time it is more commonly and thoroughly understood and explicitly expressed.

Does this help? Thoughts? Kindly - James

Thanks for explaining, James!
Please keep in mind that the following should not be considered true or accurate unless you know it personally to be true or accurate and in accord with Church Teaching:

Here is my concern; while I certainly will believe all that the Church, the bulwark of Truth, teaches; how do we know what is and is not a part of Sacred Tradition besides through Her teaching that it is a part of Sacred Tradition? In order to determine what is and what is not Sacred Tradition, we must then look to Her teachings, and if one of Her teachings, when being recorded, is lost, mis-copied, mistranslated, inadequately expressed in writing, inadequately expressed due to different interpretation of language (even in the same year and locality as an Ecumenical Council or Infallible Papal Statement takes place), or even later destroyed, we will have a decision to make as to whether to trust the recorded statement as it looks and as our best scholarship can interpret the recorded statement, or if the recorded statement looks contrary to faith by all normal interpretation, we will need to look to our Bishops who will provide a special interpretation, the true interpretation, that is in harmony with our Faith.

For example: if some demonic force were to go through and change every document, electronic or otherwise, everywhere, that contained the canons of the Council of Trent, and change the wording in every language so that the wording looked exactly as if it were saying something contrary to our Faith, would we not need to rely on our Bishops who, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, safeguard the Deposit of Faith, for the proper interpretation of these altered records of The Council of Trent? What if our Bishops (Pope included) were to all jointly teach that the intended meaning of an altered-passage of the Council of Trent actually means something entirely contradictory to the words that were written to try to express that meaning?

In a case of troubles with infallible statements like the examples I gave earlier, do we trust the recorded word that can be altered or poorly written, or the Bishop? Are the very words of the Ecumenical Councils protected by the Holy Spirit from an alteration that might go against their intended meaning?

• What the first Christians first believed we still believe; what we believed today they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of revelation has remained the same.

Is this true? If so, is Our Lord Jesus Christ considered among one of the first Christians? Certainly He would be more or less conscious of the Deposit of Revelation. How conscious must have these beliefs been in the early Christians? It is hard to imagine that even the apostles were close to consciously thinking about purgatory, papal infallibility and the infallibility of ecumenical councils (though they certainly would have known Peter to be their visible leader), the ‘light of glory’ and the beatific vision; though if this really is taught by The Church to be what the first Christians actually did, then I must rely on Her teaching.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thanks for explaining, James!
Please keep in mind that the following should not be considered true or accurate unless you know it personally to be true or accurate and in accord with Church Teaching:

Here is my concern; while I certainly will believe all that the Church, the bulwark of Truth, teaches; how do we know what is and is not a part of Sacred Tradition besides through Her teaching that it is a part of Sacred Tradition? In order to determine what is and what is not Sacred Tradition, we must then look to Her teachings, and if one of Her teachings, when being recorded, is lost, mis-copied, mistranslated, inadequately expressed in writing, inadequately expressed due to different interpretation of language (even in the same year and locality as an Ecumenical Council or Infallible Papal Statement takes place), or even later destroyed, we will have a decision to make as to whether to trust the recorded statement as it looks and as our best scholarship can interpret the recorded statement, or if the recorded statement looks contrary to faith by all normal interpretation, we will need to look to our Bishops who will provide a special interpretation, the true interpretation, that is in harmony with our Faith.

For example: if some demonic force were to go through and change every document, electronic or otherwise, everywhere, that contained the canons of the Council of Trent, and change the wording in every language so that the wording looked exactly as if it were saying something contrary to our Faith, would we not need to rely on our Bishops who, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, safeguard the Deposit of Faith, for the proper interpretation of these altered records of The Council of Trent? What if our Bishops (Pope included) were to all jointly teach that the intended meaning of an altered-passage of the Council of Trent actually means something entirely contradictory to the words that were written to try to express that meaning?

In a case of troubles with infallible statements like the examples I gave earlier, do we trust the recorded word that can be altered or poorly written, or the Bishop? Are the very words of the Ecumenical Councils protected by the Holy Spirit from an alteration that might go against their intended meaning?

We should always hold steadfast to the traditions we are handed, and compare everything to what has been taught from Day 1. If a teaching today is different from the teaching in 1200 or in 500 AD, then something is amiss. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Same goes for what He taught. So we cannot have something today that was never there in the early Church.

Is this true? If so, is Our Lord Jesus Christ considered among one of the first Christians? Certainly He would be more or less conscious of the Deposit of Revelation. How conscious must have these beliefs been in the early Christians? It is hard to imagine that even the apostles were close to consciously thinking about purgatory, papal infallibility and the infallibility of ecumenical councils (though they certainly would have known Peter to be their visible leader), the ‘light of glory’ and the beatific vision; though if this really is taught by The Church to be what the first Christians actually did, then I must rely on Her teaching.

Well, go to what has been taught throughout history then to find out.

 

[JaKael02]

Let’s expand further. You raised a few questions here so please respond and let me know which ones I did not clarify, you disagree, or need greater explanation.

How do we know what is and is not a part of Sacred Tradition besides through Her teaching that it is a part of Sacred Tradition?

This is a loaded question. Catholics believe that it is admitted that Christ instituted His Church as the official and authentic organ to transmit and explain in virtue of Divine authority the Revelation made to men. This “organ” is the Magisterium. Sacred Tradition flows through the magisterium, which the Holy Spirit protects.

In order to determine what is and what is not Sacred Tradition, we must then look to Her teachings, and if one of Her teachings, when being recorded, is lost, mis-copied, mistranslated, inadequately expressed in writing, inadequately expressed due to different interpretation of language (even in the same year and locality as an Ecumenical Council or Infallible Papal Statement takes place), or even later destroyed, we will have a decision to make as to whether to trust the recorded statement as it looks and as our best scholarship can interpret the recorded statement, or if the recorded statement looks contrary to faith by all normal interpretation, we will need to look to our Bishops who will provide a special interpretation, the true interpretation, that is in harmony with our Faith.

Many Protestant bibles have “mis-copied, mistranslated, inadequately expressed in writing, inadequately expressed due to different interpretation of language”. These bibles are not protected. The Bible is inspired, but the translations are not inspired. Bibles are approved by the Church, but the approval is not an infallible statement. Same with the Magisterium. Make sense?

What if our Bishops (Pope included) were to all jointly teach that the intended meaning of an altered-passage of the Council of Trent actually means something entirely contradictory to the words that were written to try to express that meaning?

This is theoretically impossible. It contradicts Catholic belief that the Bishops in union w/ the Pope can teach error. It’s simply impossible because the Holy Spirit will not allow it. So “IF” documents were altered, the Pope could not re-teach a Canon incorrectly, the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from it.

In a case of troubles with infallible statements like the examples I gave earlier, do we trust the recorded word that can be altered or poorly written, or the Bishop? Are the very words of the Ecumenical Councils protected by the Holy Spirit from an alteration that might go against their intended meaning?

Infallible statements are protected.
Ecumenical Councils & their canons are protected. Can a canon later be altered to go against their meaning? Yes, but the original is protected, the alternation is not protected. That’s why CC sticks with “Latin”. The Latin is protected. Vernacular languages are just approved translations.

What the first Christians first believed we still believe; what we believed today they believed more or less explicitly, in a more or less conscious way. Since the deposit of revelation has remained the same.

Is this true? If so, is Our Lord Jesus Christ considered among one of the first Christians? Certainly He would be more or less conscious of the Deposit of Revelation. How conscious must have these beliefs been in the early Christians? It is hard to imagine that even the apostles were close to consciously thinking about purgatory, papal infallibility and the infallibility of ecumenical councils (though they certainly would have known Peter to be their visible leader), the ‘light of glory’ and the beatific vision; though if this really is taught by The Church to be what the first Christians actually did, then I must rely on Her teaching.

Yes it’s true. Jesus Christ IS FULLY conscious of the Deposit of Revelation. The Church is more or less conscious of the Deposit of Revelation. Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. The early Christians were conscious of these beliefs in an implicit way.

Each of the faithful has not at all times nor has he always explicit consciousness of all that he believes, but his implicit belief always contains what he one day makes explicit in the profession of faith. Certain truths, which may be called fundamental, have always been explicitly professed in the Church either by word or action; others which may be called secondary may have long remained implicit, enveloped, as regards their precise detail, in a more general truth where faith did not discern them at the first glance.
Source: newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Feedback?

 

[Birdmanman]

ConstantineG., thanks for your response! You can read on to my response to JaKael02 to see where I am at right now on this topic.

Hi JaKael02, thanks for your response!

Many Protestant bibles have “mis-copied, mistranslated, inadequately expressed in writing, inadequately expressed due to different interpretation of language”. These bibles are not protected. The Bible is inspired, but the translations are not inspired. Bibles are approved by the Church, but the approval is not an infallible statement. Same with the Magisterium. Make sense?

So, in the same way that these Bible versions may contain translation or copyist errors, can the historical documents that contain the Canons and Teachings of the various Ecumenical Councils also contain translation or copyist errors?

This is theoretically impossible. It contradicts Catholic belief that the Bishops in union w/ the Pope can teach error. It’s simply impossible because the Holy Spirit will not allow it. So “IF” documents were altered, the Pope could not re-teach a Canon incorrectly, the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from it.

In my example, I did not mean to imply that the Bishops in union with the Pope actually taught error; I was referring to what would happen if the physical or electronic record of their teaching were to be tampered with, so that it only appeared that they taught error. I’ll try to make a clearer example:

1. (We pretend) For the first time, an Ecumenical Council defines as a Dogma of the Faith that Mary was Immaculately Conceived.
2. This same Ecumenical Council appoints 1 person to write down, on only 1 piece of paper, this Infallibly defined teaching in Latin
3. This piece of paper, with the infallible teaching written in Latin, is approved by the Council.
4. No physical copies of this teaching are made, Catechist pass down this teaching orally due to increased paper prices or some other reason.
5. After 400 years, due to lack of interest, this infallible teaching is almost forgotten, and only a handful of bishops are consciously aware of it.
6. An army intentionally trying to destroy The Church storms the Vatican, finds this one and only piece of paper with the original Latin infallible teaching written on it, and instead writes over it “Mary was not Immacuately Conceived”. The army then finds all other documents from Early Christian history that may speak about Mary or her Immaculate Conception, and destroys or alters them.
7. No one knows that these alterations took place, except those bishops who are consciously aware of Mary’s Immaculate Conception.
8. The altered document comes to light, people start believing that Mary was not Immaculately Conceived.
9. An Ecumenical Council is called (for many reasons); as a part of the Ecumenical Council it is again stated (infallibly) that Mary was Immaculately Conceived.
10. Every historical record (because they have been unnoticeably altered) goes against the idea that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and the altered Council record makes it look like even The Church in the past had infallibly declared that she was not Immaculately Conceived.
11. Nevertheless, the current Ecumenical Council was right, even though it appears to every sensible person (except those few bishops consciously aware of the teaching) that it has contradicted a prior teaching of the Church.

So, is this hypothetical example possible (besides the real world problems dealing with armies, copies of records, etc.)? Does the Holy Spirit protect the written word on paper physically, or does It protect the meaning behind what was attempted to be expressed on paper?

 

[JaKael02]

So, in the same way that these Bible versions may contain translation or copyist errors, can the historical documents that contain the Canons and Teachings of the various Ecumenical Councils also contain translation or copyist errors?

Yes they are NOT protected, the translations are not protected. Just approved by the Church.

In my example, I did not mean to imply that the Bishops in union with the Pope actually taught error; I was referring to what would happen if the physical or electronic record of their teaching were to be tampered with, so that it only appeared that they taught error. I’ll try to make a clearer example:

The Holy Spirit does not protect the electronic record. It protects the organ. In your example, the original Canon would be protected by the Holy Spirit, but the gates of Hell will not prevail.

In your example, #10 is theoretically possible because the Church did not alter the Canon - the persecutors did. The Church would have never ceased to teach the truth in your scenario.

For example, St. Paul wrote Corinthians 1 & 2. But Corinthians also discusses a letter her wrote prior to BOTH of the ones we have today. This means somewhere we lost this letter & something that was made explicit was not kept with us. We may have since made this explicit in a latter Council and not even known it.

The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize.

This may be of help:

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
Source: Catholic encyclopedia.

 

[Birdmanman]

Yes they are NOT protected, the translations are not protected. Just approved by the Church.

The Holy Spirit does not protect the electronic record. It protects the organ. In your example, the original Canon would be protected by the Holy Spirit, but the gates of Hell will not prevail.

In your example, #10 is theoretically possible because the Church did not alter the Canon - the persecutors did. The Church would have never ceased to teach the truth in your scenario.

Thanks for your response, JaKael02, this is what I had figured, but I wanted to make sure by doublechecking with someone on CAF (taking into account, of course, that you and other forum members are most likely not canonists, priests, or professional Theologians).

This helps me a great deal; I was considering making an evaluation of each of the infallible statements from the Pope (when he chooses to speak infallibly) and the Ecumenical Councils, so as to prove their consistent nature to anyone doubting it, and I became concerned with what I would do if I were to find a perfect contradiction in the original Latin wording;
I would much rather believe that the wording of the document was altered somehow by man, natural forces, or demonic forces, to only appear contradictory than believe that an actual perfect contradiction had taken place (which would be denying the Truth of our Faith).
I wanted to make sure that such an alteration was possible, so that although the Holy Spirit does protect the Magisterium of the Church from making a false statement Infallibly, The Holy Spirit does not, at least from what we have spoken about here, seem to protect the written or electronic record of those statements from being tampered with in their entirety (that is, each and all of the documents could hypothetically be altered) and made to appear false or contradictory by alterations of man, nature, or demon.

Again, thank you and all who have responded for your help

If anyone knows if what I spoke about in this post here in anyway contradicts the Catholic Faith, please correct me.

 

[JaKael02]

Thanks for your response, JaKael02, this is what I had figured, but I wanted to make sure by doublechecking with someone on CAF (taking into account, of course, that you and other forum members are most likely not canonists, priests, or professional Theologians).

This helps me a great deal; I was considering making an evaluation of each of the infallible statements from the Pope (when he chooses to speak infallibly) and the Ecumenical Councils, so as to prove their consistent nature to anyone doubting it, and I became concerned with what I would do if I were to find a perfect contradiction in the original Latin wording;
I would much rather believe that the wording of the document was altered somehow by man, natural forces, or demonic forces, to only appear contradictory than believe that an actual perfect contradiction had taken place (which would be denying the Truth of our Faith).
I wanted to make sure that such an alteration was possible, so that although the Holy Spirit does protect the Magisterium of the Church from making a false statement Infallibly, The Holy Spirit does not, at least from what we have spoken about here, seem to protect the written or electronic record of those statements from being tampered with in their entirety (that is, each and all of the documents could hypothetically be altered) and made to appear false or contradictory by alterations of man, nature, or demon.

Again, thank you and all who have responded for your help

If anyone knows if what I spoke about in this post here in anyway contradicts the Catholic Faith, please correct me.

Your welcome. Hopefully I was of some help. Defend the faith!