Cannot err in doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hisalone said:
Catholic doctrine declare the bible to be the inspired inerrant word of God. I agree. If this is so God breathed the bible into existence.
Where we disagree is your claim that the CC cannot err in doctrine.
Were did you get such a claim?
Click to expand...
If the Catholic CHurch can err in doctrine, prove to me they got this one right.

It is like the man convicted of purgery in a court of law. He may be telling the truth, but it will not be accepted outright as such.
 
Bob_Crowley said:
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.
Click to expand...
Did Jesus not say I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH and not my churchs
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Truth is unchangeable. Since Jesus Christ himself is the Truth. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to teach correct doctrine on faith and morals.

Christian believers are given the Holy Spirit through our baptism. However, when it comes to teaching office and interpretation of Scripture, the Church Alone can interpret it.

Protestantism parades itself in Biblical Authority and when you look at the general picture of Protestantism, you see contradictory teachings using Bible Alone as their source. One Protestant might say that Baptism saves, while others deny it. Another Protestant might adhere to Eternal Security while another does not.

There is a constant inconsistency in Protestantism, especially when it deals with moral and faith issues. Therefore, their doctrine is subject to error. The Catholic Church have a consistent teachings on moral and faith, and they remained the same.

The doctrine of the Trinity is solely based on the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and it’s orthodox beliefs concerning the Divine Mystery of God, the Father, God, the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Three Persons but ONE God.

You also need to look at the historical Christianity after the death of the last Apostles. You see everytime there is a dispute, the bishop gather together and resolve heresy. Councils such as the Council of Nicea 325 AD, which condemned Arianism (Arius used Scripture to support his claim), the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD which condemned Nestorianism.

These Councils were modelled from the first Christian Council in the Book of Acts, Council of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
So you cant tell us where this doectrine came from. Is there any Catholic out there that can?
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The claim comes from Our Apostolic Traditions handed down to us from the successors of the Apostles.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,–a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. …To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine…Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.” Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).

“And that you may still be more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? Which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.” Clement of Alexandria, Who is the rich man that shall be save?, 42 (A.D. 210).
Click to expand...
I do have a measure of reading comprehension and nowhere is there talk of not erring in doctrine, nowhere.
 
So the Catholic Church claims it cannot err in doctrine yet can not offer any explaination other than because I said so.
 
No, that’s what YOU say the Church says, His.

I believe that many people have tried to tell you where the teaching has come from. But since it doesn’t jive with your own personal ‘interpretation’ and since you don’t recognize the authority of the Church, you simply won’t accept it. Unless it was written in letters of gold and 16th century KJB “and lo, I sayeth that the Catholic Church cannot err in doctrinal teaching” you don’t recognize it. . .and even then, you’d probably argue that “the Catholic Church” wasn’t the “Roman” Catholic church anyway. . .:rolleyes:

HOWEVER: From the catechism of the Catholic Church:

2047 The moral life is a spiritual worship. Christian activity finds its nourishment in the liturgy and the celebration of the sacraments.
2048 The precepts of the Church concern the moral and Christian life united with the liturgy and nourished by it.
2049 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, on the basis of the Decalogue which states the principles of moral life valid for every man.
2050 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, as authentic teachers, preach to the People of God the faith which is to be believed and applied in moral life. It is also incumbent on them to pronounce on moral questions that fall within the natural law and reason.
2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.
 
And here, from the Catechism. . .
2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77
[2036](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2036.htm’)😉 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78
[2037](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2037.htm’)😉 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the *right *to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.79 They have the *duty *of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.
[2038](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2038.htm’)😉 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life “in Christ,” who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God.80 Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.
[2039](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2039.htm’)😉 Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.
 
Furthermore, even if (as it manifestly not the case) the only explanation that the Church could give for its claim regarding the charism of infallibility in teaching were ‘Because I said so’. . .that claim would be perfectly acceptable. For the ‘binding and loosing’ authority, and the guarantee of Christ that His Spirit would 'lead His Church to all truth" is the equivalent of “because I said so”. . . That “I” being Christ, our Spouse. . .
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Furthermore, even if (as it manifestly not the case) the only explanation that the Church could give for its claim regarding the charism of infallibility in teaching were ‘Because I said so’. . .that claim would be perfectly acceptable. For the ‘binding and loosing’ authority, and the guarantee of Christ that His Spirit would 'lead His Church to all truth" is the equivalent of “because I said so”. . . That “I” being Christ, our Spouse. . .
Click to expand...
You have said it all,but lets see if any one can understand what you are saying,most can;tnot hear
 
Tantum_ergo said:
No, that’s what YOU say the Church says, His.

I believe that many people have tried to tell you where the teaching has come from. But since it doesn’t jive with your own personal ‘interpretation’ and since you don’t recognize the authority of the Church, you simply won’t accept it. Unless it was written in letters of gold and 16th century KJB “and lo, I sayeth that the Catholic Church cannot err in doctrinal teaching” you don’t recognize it. . .and even then, you’d probably argue that “the Catholic Church” wasn’t the “Roman” Catholic church anyway. . .:rolleyes:

HOWEVER: From the catechism of the Catholic Church:

2047 The moral life is a spiritual worship. Christian activity finds its nourishment in the liturgy and the celebration of the sacraments.
2048 The precepts of the Church concern the moral and Christian life united with the liturgy and nourished by it.
2049 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, on the basis of the Decalogue which states the principles of moral life valid for every man.
2050 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, as authentic teachers, preach to the People of God the faith which is to be believed and applied in moral life. It is also incumbent on them to pronounce on moral questions that fall within the natural law and reason.
2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.
Click to expand...
OK finally we have somehing oher than human rasoning.
Your catechism teaches that the Catholic Church cannot err in doctrine.
Is this any different than the LDS claim? Seriously folks how can this be any more plain? The Catholic Church cannot err in doctrine because the Catholic Church says so.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Furthermore, even if (as it manifestly not the case) the only explanation that the Church could give for its claim regarding the charism of infallibility in teaching were ‘Because I said so’. . .that claim would be perfectly acceptable. For the ‘binding and loosing’ authority, and the guarantee of Christ that His Spirit would 'lead His Church to all truth" is the equivalent of “because I said so”. . . That “I” being Christ, our Spouse. . .
Click to expand...
Binding and Loosing is a Jewish idiom and was practiced in the OT church.
No because I said so is not acceptable, this is what cults do.
 
Hisalone said:
OK finally we have somehing oher than human rasoning.
Your catechism teaches that the Catholic Church cannot err in doctrine.
Is this any different than the LDS claim? Seriously folks how can this be any more plain? The Catholic Church cannot err in doctrine because the Catholic Church says so.
Click to expand...
Well we have it from the words of Our Lord if You do not believe him,I can not tell you what to do
 
I said “If it were the only claim” --if you’ll notice, His, I also said that “manifestly, that is not the case”.

See, this is why I sometimes feel, not exactly frustrated, but, well, perhaps, ‘saddened’ is the word I want. . .when I try to communicate with you. Because it seems that if I try to make ‘short answers’, you claim they aren’t ‘complete’. If I try to give enough ‘reason’ and not just make the flat, short answer, you seem all too often to misunderstand. Now, I’m sure that I’m not perfect in my communications but it does seem that others understand me quite well and again, it often seems as if you ‘alone’ (if you’ll pardon the phraseology) have the difficulty. But what the heck, I’ll keep on trying to give the truth as best I can and hope with God’s grace that ultimately I’ll succeed in ‘getting through’. . .
 
BTW, His, what is “the OT church?”

And where in Scripture is there the list of “such practices” that were only celebrated in ‘those’ churches? I mean, it is Jesus using that ‘term’ in the NT (New Testament) and telling His apostles that they would do so. . .um, so where exactly does He say --"But guys, since this is a ‘Jewish idiom’ of mine you’ll only have this power so long as “OT Churches” exist. . .and of course, to any of the ‘readers’ of this gospel which will appear after my death and not be part of the “Bible’ as it will ultimately be known for the next 350 years, you have to realize that I’m only using “jewish idiom’ and that when I talk about things like binding and loosing I’m just running my mouth off. I don’t mean that anybody in MY ‘invisible’ church is going to have these ‘OT Jewish powers’.”. . .”🤷
 
You still have not proven to me that we have the correct list of books in the Bible.

If the Church is not assured by God to be right about issues of faith, HOW IS THE BIBLE THE CORRECT SET OF BOOKS?

It is not a hard question. How can you PROVE that the Bible is the correct set of Books
 
Bob_Crowley said:
Well, the way I see it certain catastrophes are not far off. I’ll be interested to see the response of anti-contraceptive hardliners when they start finding their own resources becoming rather limited.
Click to expand...
Crowely,

Evidently you don’t have Trust in Jesus Christ!

Ufam Tobie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top