Can we know by reason alone that the church is free from error in certain types of teachings?

[N0X3x]

Many of my Catholic beliefs that are based on reason are supported primarily by the claim that the church is without error in certain types of statements. IF this is true, it would seem to serve as a sufficient foundation for many Catholic teachings.

I’m wondering if any of you know of any justifications for this claim. I personally have not been able to come up with one.

in your justification, you may assume:

1.God exists (God here defined as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient mind or group of minds who is responsible for the existence of the universe)

2.Jesus was a real person who had (or has), at the very least, a unique or extremely rare (among humans) connection to God, which is, at least in some aspects, different and in some sense greater than the connection between most other humans and God.

3.The Roman Catholic church is the same church that Jesus himself founded.

1. the Roman Catholic church remains the central or only conduit through which grace is transferred from God to human beings.

 

[ericc]

Many of my Catholic beliefs that are based on reason are supported primarily by the claim that the church is without error in certain types of statements. IF this is true, it would seem to serve as a sufficient foundation for many Catholic teachings.

I’m wondering if any of you know of any justifications for this claim. I personally have not been able to come up with one.

in your justification, you may assume:

1.God exists (God here defined as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient mind or group of minds who is responsible for the existence of the universe)

2.Jesus was a real person who had (or has), at the very least, a unique or extremely rare (among humans) connection to God, which is, at least in some aspects, different and in some sense greater than the connection between most other humans and God.

3.The Roman Catholic church is the same church that Jesus himself founded.

1. the Roman Catholic church remains the central or only conduit through which grace is transferred from God to human beings.

I am surprised that you didn’t managed to connect the dots.

My main reason would be by Matthew 16:18 “the gates of Hades shall not prevail”. I will presume that Christ being Divine has the ability to ensure that his words will be true perpetually.

Rationale:

1. Jesus claims his Church built on Peter will withstand the assaults of the Devil i.e. will teach truth and not error among other things.
   2, This is a perpetual warranty.

Failing of either would mean Christ is not divine, he is not worthy of being the Head of His Church, he lied, he and the Holy Spirit wasn’t with them always Mat 28:20, or with them always but not teaching the truth John 14:16, 16:13.

Your assumption No 2 is too weak. Jesus has to be God for the Good News to be true. Not merely “connection to God”. If he is merely a good man, a holy man, a miracle worker, a wise man, he would be a blasphemous hypocrite when he accepted worship from his disciples and identifying himself as " I AM".

1. It wouldn’t have made a lot of sense if he hadn’t identify anyone to be that leader. The Feed my sheep/lamb quote John 21:15-17 expressly identified Peter with the added responsibility of shepherding the rest. Hence Matthew 16:18 set the foundation of the Church on Peter (and his successors) and John 21 the leadership role. Matthew 16:19 gave Peter the keys i.e. authority to bind and loose.

Altogether you will see that Christ, started the Church on Peter, gave him his responsibility, gave him the authority, and gave a blanket warranty of support perpetually.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Many of my Catholic beliefs that are based on reason are supported primarily by the claim that the church is without error in certain types of statements. IF this is true, it would seem to serve as a sufficient foundation for many Catholic teachings.

I’m wondering if any of you know of any justifications for this claim. I personally have not been able to come up with one.

in your justification, you may assume:

1.God exists (God here defined as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient mind or group of minds who is responsible for the existence of the universe)

2.Jesus was a real person who had (or has), at the very least, a unique or extremely rare (among humans) connection to God, which is, at least in some aspects, different and in some sense greater than the connection between most other humans and God.

3.The Roman Catholic church is the same church that Jesus himself founded.

1. the Roman Catholic church remains the central or only conduit through which grace is transferred from God to human beings.

What do you mean that your beliefs are supported by reason?

You have proposed four statements that you would seem to admit as your basic “axioms” and “definitions” (is God a mere “definition” to you?). Don’t you think you are missing your rules of inference? Which ones would them be?

What do you say about the neotestamentarian scriptures?

 

[fisherman_carl]

By reason alone? I would say no since you use the word ‘alone’. There isn’t much that we know by reason alone. We can use reason, but we have to use more than just reason. Actually, it was G.K. Chesterton who said that the insane person isn’t someone who has lost their reason, rather he has lost everything except his reason. You couldn’t know by reason alone for instance that you are not a brain in a vat controlled by a mad scientist.

Any reason about the infallibility of the church would have to be based on the words of Jesus, which is Revelation. It is really faith in the words of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that we can have trust that the Church which is made up of fallible people is free from doctrinal error. Without that trust that Jesus is guiding the Church there is no reason to think it is free of error. Thus, it is really faith and grace that is responsible here, and not reason alone. It is the same Holy Spirit that kept the Bible free from error, that guides the Church in its morals and doctrine to be free from error. If you can believe the Bible that was written by fallible people is kept free from error then you can also believe the Church guided by the Holy Spirit is also free from error in matters of faith and morals.

 

[N0X3x]

I am surprised that you didn’t managed to connect the dots.

My main reason would be by Matthew 16:18 “the gates of Hades shall not prevail”. I will presume that Christ being Divine has the ability to ensure that his words will be true perpetually.

Rationale:

1. Jesus claims his Church built on Peter will withstand the assaults of the Devil i.e. will teach truth and not error among other things.
   2, This is a perpetual warranty.

Failing of either would mean Christ is not divine, he is not worthy of being the Head of His Church, he lied, he and the Holy Spirit wasn’t with them always Mat 28:20, or with them always but not teaching the truth John 14:16, 16:13.

I have heard that the “gates of hell will not prevail” line is actually referring to the fact that the fallen angels will not be able to withstand an offensive attack from the church. It is the gates of hell which will not prevail, meaning the church can break them down. The church is not merely a firm reaction to hell; it actively goes out to destroy evil.

in any case, being a force for good, even the primary force for good, whether in a defensive or offensive sense, does not necessarily mean that the church is free from error. There is no particular reason that I can see to interpret “the gates of hell will not prevail” to include “the church is without error in some teachings.”

so it isn’t a matter of Jesus lying, since Jesus, to my knowledge, never explicitly made that claim.

I will concede that John 16:13 is much more convincing, but the problem is that the authority of the bible rests upon the authority of the church, as the church is what decided biblical cannon. Additionally, there are interpretations of this passage which do not necessarily mean that the church is free from error in some teachings.

i.e. leading people to truth does not necessarily mean protecting them from error, the holy spirit may not be given exclusively to christians, etc.

 

[N0X3x]

What do you mean that your beliefs are supported by reason?

I mean that I try to make sure that the entirety of my beliefs are reason and not faith based.

You have proposed four statements that you would seem to admit as your basic “axioms” and “definitions” (is God a mere “definition” to you?). Don’t you think you are missing your rules of inference? Which ones would them be?

perhaps I should have used the word “described”, rather than “defined”

Also, I am not proposing a justification, I am asking for one. I’m just giving those trying to formulate the justification something to work with.

What do you say about the neotestamentarian scriptures?

Unless you are speaking about the gnostic gospels, I’m not sure what you are referring to.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I mean that I try to make sure that the entirety of my beliefs are reason and not faith based.

perhaps I should have used the word “described”, rather than “defined”

Also, I am not proposing a justification, I am asking for one. I’m just giving those trying to formulate the justification something to work with.

What do you say about the neotestamentarian scriptures?

Unless you are speaking about the gnostic gospels, I’m not sure what you are referring to.

I am referring to the part of the Holy Bible that we call “New Testament”. It is not a set of texts on logic nor on mathematics; so, you would not find on them the rational basis for your beliefs. Instead, those texts contain the testimony of people who witnessed some of the facts of Jesus of Nazareth.

It is confusing to me when I read that you want to make sure that the entirety of your beliefs are reason and not faith based. I remember when one of our professors of mathematics had to demonstrate a new theorem (B) to us. To do that he needed to base his proof on another theorem (A); but we didn’t know it yet. Then he said: the proof for theorem A is much more complex than the proof for theorem B, and you don’t know yet some of the concepts involved; so, please accept theorem A as already demonstrated and with it I will prove theorem B. So, we accepted to believe that theorem A was true; and in a certain way our belief had a rational basis: We could look for the theorem in some advanced texts and for the concepts which we didn’t know yet. The demonstration was available and it was just a matter of time and effort for us to comprehend it.

But to believe on the testimony of a witness is quite another thing. If the witness tells you “we have committed ourselves to a great endeavor and we are calling you to join us”, would you consider that invitation as a rational basis for the belief that if you join them and commit yourself with all your being in the same endeavor, you will succeed?

Perhaps (and only perhaps, because I have observed that it does not always happen), you have committed yourself to the realization of significant projects in your life. If that is the case, I would like to ask you: Have you requested a demonstration (a rational basis) that you will be successful in your efforts, before you engage? Or, instead, once you have made up your mind, have you decided to start and penetrate into the unknown with such a vigorous action that you have become a candle for others? If you had such strength, such faith!, do you think you would need demonstrations, rational basis? You would be constructing them!

Do you think that “faith” is weakness compared to “reason”? You just have to reflect a little bit on which “rational basis” you have to perform your daily actions. If you waited for “rational basis”, you would not be able even to get across the street. Do you need demonstrations that the church is free of errors in certain types of teachings? I say: learn about them, and if in the purity of your mind and heart they make sense to you, commit yourself to them, and become a candle for others!..

 

[ericc]

I have heard that the “gates of hell will not prevail” line is actually referring to the fact that the fallen angels will not be able to withstand an offensive attack from the church. It is the gates of hell which will not prevail, meaning the church can break them down. The church is not merely a firm reaction to hell; it actively goes out to destroy evil.

in any case, being a force for good, even the primary force for good, whether in a defensive or offensive sense, does not necessarily mean that the church is free from error. There is no particular reason that I can see to interpret “the gates of hell will not prevail” to include “the church is without error in some teachings.”

You were asking for a reasonable justification and I provided you with a Catholic one. Mat 16:18 does not hint in anyway of an offensive attack by the Church. Not sure how you come to that conclusion. What you have heard, is that the truth? How do you decide that? There are 2 takeaways from that verse: Church built on Peter and gates of Hades shall not prevail. Unless you can disprove the Catholic explanation, it is a reasonable explanation that Jesus gave Peter a warranty of protection. It is Christ protecting his Church that he built on Peter. You can not divorce Christ from his Church and you have accepted the basis that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ on Peter. You are accusing Christ of neglecting his Bride ie the Church and letting her fall into error when he has given that warranty. Alternatively, the Church is the Body Of Christ and Christ the Head. Either way, you will be accusing Christ of neglect.

so it isn’t a matter of Jesus lying, since Jesus, to my knowledge, never explicitly made that claim.

That is your opinion. But we are not here arguing about your opinion. You are soliciting for reasonable explanations since you can not figure out how the church was protected from teaching error. And unless you can the disprove the Catholic interpretation of Mat 16:18, you need to concede that it is a reasonable explanation based upon plain reading of the verse. The argument is not whether the explanation is to your liking or not, but to its reasonableness.

I will concede that John 16:13 is much more convincing, but the problem is that the authority of the bible rests upon the authority of the church, as the church is what decided biblical cannon. Additionally, there are interpretations of this passage which do not necessarily mean that the church is free from error in some teachings.

And that is a historical fact. The Bible came from the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t the interpretation of the Bible be from the source?The Church is protected from teaching error not because the Church said so, but Christ. Why is that a problem?

i.e. leading people to truth does not necessarily mean protecting them from error, the holy spirit may not be given exclusively to christians, etc.

I didn’t claim that the Holy Spirit could not teach truth to others. Other religions, individuals do also teach some truth. But the warranty was given to the Catholic Church only i.e. gates of hades will not prevail. Others do not get this perpetual warranty.

If the Holy Spirit leads the Church to the truth, how is it not the truth then? If Christ says he will be with them always, how can one accuse him of sitting back doing nothing if HIS Church is in danger of falling into error? Your words seem to sound like the Holy Spirit and Christ are not going to do anything to prevent HIS Church from falling into error which is contrary to what Christ said: He will be with them always and HS will teach them all truths, gates of hades will not prevail.

 

[Elizium23]

You were asking for a reasonable justification and I provided you with a Catholic one. Mat 16:18 does not hint in anyway of an offensive attack by the Church. Not sure how you come to that conclusion. What you have heard, is that the truth? How do you decide that? There are 2 takeaways from that verse: Church built on Peter and gates of Hades shall not prevail.

It’s simply implicit in the claim, if you correctly understand ancient seige warfare and the way cities were designed. Cities had walls around them and gates to protect from attackers. Therefore, in Jesus’ analogy, Hell is a city and the Church is attacking it from without. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church’s attack.

 

[ericc]

It’s simply implicit in the claim, if you correctly understand ancient seige warfare and the way cities were designed. Cities had walls around them and gates to protect from attackers. Therefore, in Jesus’ analogy, Hell is a city and the Church is attacking it from without. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church’s attack.

I am looking at how the verse starts with building Church on Peter the Rock. In siege warfare you build a strong castle on firm foundation so that you can repel/withstand enemies. In the current world, Satan is the ruler. He is doing the attacking. Satan is not under siege and the proof is all around you.

I think you got the attacker/defender the other way round. The attacker will go above/below, around you to breach your defenses. He doesn’t need strong foundations, he just need to be strong. Whereas the defender need strong foundations/walls although he may be inferior in strength. Strong walls on weak foundations doesn’t last long. Paul say we need to persevere and usually is to tell us not to fall into temptations. It doesn’t sound like we are in an attacking mode.

 

[Elizium23]

I am looking at how the verse starts with building Church on Peter the Rock. In siege warfare you build a strong castle on firm foundation so that you can repel/withstand enemies. In the current world, Satan is the ruler. He is doing the attacking. Satan is not under siege and the proof is all around you.

I think you got the attacker/defender the other way round. The attacker will go above/below, around you to breach your defenses. He doesn’t need strong foundations, he just need to be strong. Whereas the defender need strong foundations/walls although he may be inferior in strength. Strong walls on weak foundations doesn’t last long. Paul say we need to persevere and usually is to tell us not to fall into temptations. It doesn’t sound like we are in an attacking mode.

Here is Msgr. Charles Pope’s analysis.

 

[ericc]

Here is Msgr. Charles Pope’s analysis.

And he is not denying the traditional view. His words:

Figuratively, he probably means that the powers of Hell would not prevail against the Church. And, as stated above this is a common figurative meaning of the Greek word πύλης (gates) in ancient usage.

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553:

“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

A Church Council pronouncement that the Church is protected from error of heresy is solid evidence of this sort of view.

Other sources:

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053:

“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.” Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 351.

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262):
“Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.” (Intro. To Catena Aurea.) The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, Regnery, Co: Chicago, IL, 1963,Vol. 1, pp. xxiv