Cannot err in doctrine

[gurneyhalleck1]

As a former Protestant, I’m not starry eyed about the Catholic Church always being right about doctrine. I think it’s wrong about the contraceptive pill for a start. Christ didn’t say Peter, even as the Rock, would never err. In the very next breath, Peter made his first mistake, with Christ rebuking him as Satan, and later ran away with the other disciples, and even denied Christ three times. That’s hardly a sign of infallible judgement or a promise of infallible doctrine, starting with the very first “Pope”.

However Christ stated that which Peter (and by later extension) the Papacy “bound” or “loosed” on earth would be similarly honoured in heaven. The simple fact that the two words mean diametric opposites implies the church can change a doctrine and heaven will honour the change. A change of opinion means a re-think of a previous doctrine, hence Christ’s statement all by itself implies the church is going to change it’s mind on various issues. There’s more involved here than the simple issue of excommunication.

Hi Bob,
In reply to your first paragraph, you point out some knuckle-head moments from Peter and the famous “get ye behind me, Satan” quote as well as Peter’s denial. Keep in mind that Peter did these things before Pentecost. It is at Pentecost where Peter received the Holy Spirit and the Church truly begins full-on. The apostles are energized and blessed with a profound change and charisms thanks to the Holy Spirit. Comparing Peter’s irrasciable, impulsive, and sinful mistakes in his “former” life as a follower of Jesus and Peter post-resurrection and post-Pentecost is apples and oranges to me. Infallibility wouldn’t come into play there. I agree with much of your second paragraph, especially about excommunication!

 

[manualman]

Hi Bob,
In reply to your first paragraph, you point out some knuckle-head moments from Peter and the famous “get ye behind me, Satan” quote as well as Peter’s denial. Keep in mind that Peter did these things before Pentecost. It is at Pentecost where Peter received the Holy Spirit and the Church truly begins full-on. The apostles are energized and blessed with a profound change and charisms thanks to the Holy Spirit. Comparing Peter’s irrasciable, impulsive, and sinful mistakes in his “former” life as a follower of Jesus and Peter post-resurrection and post-Pentecost is apples and oranges to me. Infallibility wouldn’t come into play there. I agree with much of your second paragraph, especially about excommunication!

Nah, wrong tree you’re barking up. Peter’s personal behavior and even his discrete decisions as bishop are not infallible. Scripture clearly shows this AFTER Pentecost (unless my memory betrays me) when Paul rightly rebukes Peter for being essentially peer pressured into refusing to eat ‘unclean’ foods, per Jewish law. You cannot infer catholic teaching from the behavior of bishops, even the pope, only the formal doctrinal teaching. Peter didn’t stand up in the assembly and TEACH that believers had to observe Mosaic kosher laws - THAT would be proof against infallibility (which is why it didn’t happen that way). He just caved into expectations and pressure as to how he behaved. VERY important!!! You cannot infer catholic teaching from the behavior of the bishops or the pope. It just doesn’t work that way.

 

[Hisalone]

Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter,c and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hadesd will not overcome it.e 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bef bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beg loosed in heaven.”

What are the gates of hell? What are these keys that allow the binding and loosing? As pointed out earlier binding and loosing were Jewish idioms which pertained to daily Jewish life. ie what work could be done on the Sabboth. Neither the gates of hell nor binding and loosing pertain to a church that cannot err

Ehp 2:19-22 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

Yes Christs Church is built on Christ as He said I will build My Church.Christ is building His Church to be His bride. It is being built but is not finishe yet.

1 Cor 1:12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephasa”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
1 Cor 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel

In Matt 16:18, The rock that Jesus describes is Peter’s profession of faith the Jesus is the Christ. **It’s not that the church will be built upon Peter, but Peter’s profession. **In Eph 2:20, the foundation is all the apostles and prophets, not Peter only, with Christ being the chief cornerstone. The Lord, throughout scripture, is consistently the Rock (Petra), no one else.

The gospel and the ministry are the keys to heaven. Peter happen to be the first one to bring it to the Jews after Jesus.

In 1 Cor 1:12, Paul said that “I follow Christ.” Paul was correcting the Corinthians due to division in the church for who to follow. Paul came to preach the gospel which is that key.

Here we have Christ holding the keys of death and Hades, and the key of David. Only Christ can open and close heaven to people for it is Christ that will judge according to the Father’s will.

Rev 1:18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
Rev 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open

 

[Hisalone]

Sorry Shawn. You’ve been misled.

It is the belief of Catholics that our Lord promised to Peter a primacy of jurisdiction over his Church (Matthew 16:18), a primacy which he actually conferred after his resurrection (John 21:15 ff). We hold, moreover, that it was given, not to Peter alone, but to the successors in his office and that it is vested for all time in the Roman Pontiff, who is the visible Head of the Church. No article of the Christian faith is more fully substantiated in Scripture and Tradition than this.

continued

Tom of course we disagree with you.
But in either case it does not support that the CC position that it cannot err.

 

[Hisalone]

Shawn,

Let us recall the words of the principal Petrine text: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (Aramaic : kepha), and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19). Our Lord makes known his will in a series of three metaphors whose meaning, clear enough to us, would still be clearer to listeners familiar with Old Testament Scripture and the teaching method of the Rabbis. He first compares his Church to a building of which Peter is to be the foundation; he next employs the comparison suggested by “the keys,” which will be handed to Peter as a sign of his power over Christ’s house; finally comes the reference to “binding and loosing,” a symbol of the moral nature of the office, which is furthermore backed by divine sanction.

None of which if you are correct supports a Church that cannot err.

 

[Hisalone]

How do you know that the Books that we call the Bible are the correct books to be in the Bible?

How does this support your position that the church cannt err.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nah, wrong tree you’re barking up. Peter’s personal behavior and even his discrete decisions as bishop are not infallible. Scripture clearly shows this AFTER Pentecost (unless my memory betrays me) when Paul rightly rebukes Peter for being essentially peer pressured into refusing to eat ‘unclean’ foods, per Jewish law. You cannot infer catholic teaching from the behavior of bishops, even the pope, only the formal doctrinal teaching. Peter didn’t stand up in the assembly and TEACH that believers had to observe Mosaic kosher laws - THAT would be proof against infallibility (which is why it didn’t happen that way). He just caved into expectations and pressure as to how he behaved. VERY important!!! You cannot infer catholic teaching from the behavior of the bishops or the pope. It just doesn’t work that way.

Manual,

I don’t think you actually read my post as you seem to think I’m barking up a tree to which I’m not really barking? I never said that impeccability and infallibility go hand in hand? I was supporting infallibility, not arguing against it? I think you read half of what I said or took it in some other context? Peter was a human being and was never impeccable ever. But my point was that the poster was saying a bunch of things about Peter’s weak character in all these moments of failure. While he does indeed yield to pressure at the council after the Pentecost, I believe the Holy Spirit’s charism given him on Pentecost made Peter a new man. It gave new strength and charisma and confidence to all the apostles. Where Peter denied Christ pre-pentacost, he was willing to be crucified upside down after it and so forth. He remained a weak human throughout but God’s grace gave him strength. That was my point. I never said that Peter’s personality somehow had something to do with his decision-making as a bishop?

 

[ralphinal]

How does this support your position that the church cannt err.

You will have to follow along to get that answer. First thing is first. How do you know that the Books that we have in the Bible are the correct Books?

 

[Hisalone]

You will have to follow along to get that answer. First thing is first. How do you know that the Books that we have in the Bible are the correct Books?

Ralph we have several threads on the origin of the bible and of its cannon, use your search function. This is my thread and I prefer to stay the course. Lay out your claim, so far there has not been much to it.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph we have several threads on the origin of the bible and of its cannon, use your search function. This is my thread and I prefer to stay the course. Lay out your claim, so far there has not been much to it.

Well, ha!

From 33 to sometime in the 40s or 50s (depending on which dates you accept), there were NO Christian Scriptures. By the time the last Apostle died, again depending on dating system used, most or all of the NT was finished. BY the end of the second century, there were LOTS of Books used to teach the faith. Not all of them made it into the Bible.

Over the next few centuries, different canons were used. Finally, the Church, through councils, determined which of those were acceptable. Basically, the Catholic Church said “Here are the works that are inspired and are to be considered holy.”

Now, if the Church CAN err in doctrine, than we might not have the correct Bible at all. IF the Church CANNOT err in doctrine, than we can trust that what we have is what God wanted. IF you call into question the Church, you can no longer trust that the Bible is perfect.

Further, no where in the Bible does the Bible say what should be in the Bible. No where in the Bible does the Bible say that the Church is not over it.

 

[Tomster]

I agree. I have been waitng in the wings for Catholics to make their case before I comment and I will make a detailed post maybe tonight however, let me say this. Can the Catholic Church declare it is infallible without outside support? Do the scriptures which the CC uses to support infallibility really say what Catholics claim?

Still waiting for your “detailed” post.

 

[manualman]

Ralph we have several threads on the origin of the bible and of its cannon, use your search function. This is my thread and I prefer to stay the course. Lay out your claim, so far there has not been much to it.

On the contrary, my first post here laid it out quite succinctly. The catholic line of reasoning shows that our church continues to operate with apostolic leadership in an unbroken line just like the leadership in Scripture portrays and Christ instituted.

Your position is that there was a radical departure when authority transferred from the apostles (including those later appointed to apostolic office like St. Paul and Judas Iscariot’s replacement) to a book (the Bible). But that same book says nothing about exacty when this radical change occurred. It is a rather gaping hole in protestant thinking.

 

[Tomster]

How do you know that the Books that we call the Bible are the correct books to be in the Bible?

Hisalone,

Please answer the question.

 

[Tomster]

Tom of course we disagree with you.
But in either case it does not support that the CC position that it cannot err.

Oh, but it does!

The doctrinal authority, or magisterium, with which Christ has equipped his Church includes all rights and privileges necessary for the effective teaching of divine revelation and guarding intact the deposit of faith. He has willed that the human race as a whole should acquire God’s truth, not by individual inspiration, nor by the private interpretation of Scripture, but by attending to the living voice of the Church. Hence, as a corollary, he has ensured that the voice will not err; in other words, he has endowed his Church with the gift of infallibility. This infallibility extends, in principle, to the tradition of of Christian belief (faith) and the manner of life (morals); it is concerned with what men must believe, and what they must do, if they are to be saved.

What does your sect teach on this matter? Please be specific. I am sure your pastors preach on what a Christian is to believe and how one is to conduct himself. But, since your sect, admittedly, can err in these areas, give us a detailed response how you can arrive at the truth all by yourself.

 

[Hisalone]

OK i began to catolog the responses so as to address them I will show the first 7 orr 8 responses. Then I came to a point of nothing but circular arguements and basically saying because the Church says so (my words not yours)

here is the start.

1)Matt 16:19, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

1. Christ would not allow error.
2. (Matthew 16:18, NAB) “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it,” actually says more towards infallibility.
3. Also check out the follwing passages:

Infallible Church
Jn 16:13 - guided by Holy Spirit into all truth
Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything
Lk 10:16 - speak with Christ’s own voice
1Tim 3:15 - Church called “pillar and foundation of truth”
1Jn 2:27 - anointing of Holy Spirit remains in you
Acts 15:28 - Apostles speak with voice of Holy Spirit
Mt 28:20 - I am with you

1. In Matthew 16:18, we have the promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against the Church that is to be built on the rock; and this also, we maintain, implies the assurance of the Church’s infallibility in the exercise of her teaching office.

In Christ’s discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: “I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:16, 17). “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” (ibid. 26). "But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8).

In 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Paul speaks of “the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”; and this description would be something worse than mere exaggeration if it had been intended to apply to a fallible Church; it would be a false and misleading description.

Finally, the consciousness of corporate infallibility is clearly signified in the expression used by the assembled Apostles in the decree of the Council of Jerusalem: “It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you”, etc. (Acts 15:28).

1. loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here:
2. Well, Scripture and the Holy Spirit certainly support the idea that Christ’s Church would not teach error in doctrine.

 

[Hisalone]

Well, Scripture and the Holy Spirit certainly support the idea that Christ’s Church would not teach error in doctrine.

Where?

For if this were not the case, then every Christian teaching we have–and that includes the Bible itself–is open to the possibility that it was given ‘in error’ by ‘fallible men’. In which case we have nothing to stand on and no authority because it is demonstrably evident that all those who ‘claim’ that the Holy Spirit has guided them on this, that and the other ‘doctrine’ are claiming opposing teachings. The Spirit cannot stand against Himself. Therefore, if you have Christian A claiming that Scripture says, for example, that John 6 reveals that the Eucharist is Christ’s real flesh and blood. . .and Christian B claiming, "no, it is only symbolic’. . .there is no possible way that Christian A and Christian B can both be right.

Tells me
nothing, where did this doctrine come from?
Only one can be correct. And the other, for all his or her conviction, is wrong.

If you have only your own ‘conviction’ to claim as authority (and that is what non-Catholics basically have, their ‘assurance’ that the “spirit has spoken to them personally and revealed X personally” etc.), you’re arguing in a circle. “It’s true because I feel it’s true. I sense it’s true.” as opposed to, “It’s true because the Spirit has said it AND the Church has listened and confirmed it” means that we can know that it isn’t just our own ‘fallible’ selves who may easily misunderstand the spirit, but the Scripturally sanctioned “pillar and foundation of truth” which we are assured will never fail and which will be guided to all truth which has heard and understood and been guided to correct understanding by the Spirit.

All Christians understood this for the first 1000 years of Christianity. And even in the first ‘split’ in 1054, our Orthodox brothers still maintain (even if they deny Rome as authority) that there IS an authority, and it ain’t "the Spirit speaks to me alone and so I know I’m right’. THAT little modernistic heresy is one Protestant trait that above all causes more trouble to Christians than any supposed “Catholic” evils that were reported or misreported to have taken place. . . And our Orthodox brothers and sisters would be the first I think to state that for the SECOND 1000 years of Christianity they and we are still maintaining authentic Christian teaching on authority and that our Protestant brothers and sisters, worthy and well-intentioned though they be, are not teaching authentically in this regard.

The rest is only human reasoning, so you reason yours is better than others so you must be correct? Wheres the beef?

 

[Hisalone]

I think the Pope makes no err indoctrine because of 2 things.

1. At the beggining on Acts of the Apostles the Bible sais that if one Apostles dies a other man replaces him and gets the holy spirit. So the catholic church do it today too.
   They only no more called Apostles they now called bishops.

Huh?

2.In John 11 51 it is stands that the high priest is a prophet and god speaks through him,
even while he said to kill Jesus. But the Bible said that the church of Jesus is better than the old system => The leading of the church is more than only a kind of prophet!!!

So the church is better than the old system so it cannot err?

 

[Hisalone]

It is really easy to get yourself into trouble with hypotheticals. A more likely answer to your quandry is that the Holy Spirit simply restrains the church from changing a true doctrine into error. Occam’s razor, you know…

The OP raises an awfully good question, but it is a far greater question for HIM than for us. Catholic logic works like this:

1. Jesus claimed to be God the Son and proved it rather dramatically.
2. Because of #1 above, we can trust what Jesus promised us.
3. Jesus invested authority in his apostles to teach in His name and breathed the Holy Spirit on them in a manner that gave them special graces to be reliable teachers of the faith.
4. The apostles immediately established the precedents of ordaining new apostles upon the death of one (see Judas Iscariot replacement) and establishing new apostolic offices when mission and geography call for it (St. Paul)
5. The apostles clearly act with authority (repealing the OT prohibition on eating pork, for example).
6. The successors of the apostles discern and compile the Sacred Scripture from the hundreds of documents that could have potentially been considered inspired and declare them sacred, inerrant and inviolable (when understood correctly, of course).

For catholics, #6 above only works because 1-5 before them hold water. I have no idea how protestants justify their total trust in Scripture when it is only the authority Jesus gave to the catholic church that makes Scripture knowable as inspired in the first place! Sure the Bible claims that it is inspired. Big deal, so does the Quran and Book of Mormon. Only the Bible backs up its claims with a lineage that goes back to Jesus himself. Same goes for catholicism as a whole.

For the record, I should add that there is a #7 that few protestants seem to know about. It is catholic dogma that the era of general revelation is over. No pope can come on the scene tomorrow and do a Muhammed or Joseph Smith thing and claim divine inspiriation for his ideas that are incompatible with general revelation already proclaimed. We still make advances in understanding of the revelation that has been given to us and have to make moral judgements on new issues based on established principles (like in vitro and stem cell research, for example). But it simply cannot happen for, say, an 8th sacrament to be proclaimed.

Again you are saying the CAtholic Church cannot err in doctrine because that position makes sense to you-------human reasoning!!!

 

[Hisalone]

Why is that? Where do Protestants get THAT from? Why just ONE infallible doctrine?

And what good is a Church that can’t infallibly define its doctrines? Are we to cross our fingers about all our beliefs since, if they’re not infallible they can be reversed sometime in the future?

Would any Protestant like to tell us which doctrines of their denomination are fallible and subject to reversal at any time? From what I see, most Protestants are just as sure of their own doctrinal infallibility as any Catholic.

The Catholic Church teaches the bible is the inspired inerrant word of God. Do you disagree with your Churchs’ teaching?

 

[Hisalone]

This is a very good question for Hisalone too.

I’ll be “waiting in the wings” for an answer.

Please add any thoughts or opinions on this thread,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=258232