Cannot err in doctrine

[Hisalone]

The deposit must be “faithfully kept”; there have been occasions when it has had to be “infallibly declared.” The Holy Spirit is twice called by Our Lord “the Spirit of truth,” ( John 15:26; John 16:13) and it is to him that the Church looks for that gift of infallibility, that divine assistance that safeguards her supreme authority in its doctrinal definitions and in its ordinary teaching of the faithful. This assistance should not, as is evident from what has been said, be regarded as a means of communicating new truths to the Church, i.e., sola scriptura, sola fides, et. al., nor is it a positive influence inspiring the Popes and members of General Councils to utter definitions and declarations of Catholic doctrine. It is rather in the nature of a negative influence that restrains the episcopate and its Head from teaching or proclaiming anything contrary to the revealed deposit. But, though it may be called negative in its essential character, it is not negative in its effect - the preservation of the ecclesiastical magisterium within the limits of the truth. Such assistance does not necessarily preserve the Church from error except in regard of revealed truth and truths intimately connected with revelation, nor does it dispense the authorities of the Church from exercising ordinary prudence and diligence in preparing matter for a definition. This, then, is the special divine assitance promised by means of the Holy Spirit’s mission to the Church. “You shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

How is this different than the Catholic Church cannot err because human reason says so?

It is not

 

[Hisalone]

Hisalone,

ANSWER THE QUESTION !

The bible claims to be inspired or God breathed and inerrant or without error. I believe this claim.
The bible does not say the CC cannot err.

Why do you chose to beleive the Roman Catholic Churc cannot err.

 

[Hisalone]

If you read english it does say that

The Catholic Chrch says so not the bible.

 

[Hisalone]

Of course I’m dealing with His on another thread, Ralph, but it’s the same kind of argument as here. Apparently he (or she) thinks that the “ROMAN Catholic Church” is not the same as the “Catholic Church”. Apparently he or she is unaware that the Catholic Church is officially the CATHOLIC Church, NOT the “Roman” Catholic Church. That the phrase “Roman” was tacked onto us by Protestants.

I mean, just go to, for example, the Catechism. (online or in the stores). it is the Catechism of the CATHOLIC Church. Not “the Roman Catholic Church”.

We Catholics today are members of the same Church that Luke, Matthew, Mark, John etc. were. The term “Catholic” in regard to that church was used as early as AD 100.

But apparently SOME people don’t want to think that “Catholics” today are members of that church. So they erect some “Roman” Church from god knows when, and claim that the ROMANS were ‘later’ than the “real” Christians.

Yeah the term ROMAN when applied to the Church was later. . .Lots later, when the Protestants put the term onto us when THEY speak of us–but it isn’t used by the Church in reference to itself.

Many Catholics refer to themseves as Roman Catholics. I prefer the term because it is more accurate then Catholic Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, you prefer the term because you SAY it is more accurate.

Preference of a term doesn’t make it truthful, does it His?

If the Catholic Church is “Roman”, why does its catechism–an authoritative document–call itself the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

If we Catholics are really “Roman”, why do we not refer to the Pope as head of the “roman catholic church”? And what of all my fellow Catholics of the Eastern rites? They are as 'Catholic" as I, they are in COMMUNION with the POPE, but they aren’t “Roman”.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Is this any different than the Catholic Church cannot err because the Catholic Church says so?
No it is not.

This is a lot of talk about nothing,like putting out 46 Bible verse and just picking 3 .
And it is not the CC saying it cannot err , it is Out Lord saying the Chruch did err

 

[Bill_Pick]

Many Catholics refer to themseves as Roman Catholics. I prefer the term because it is more accurate then Catholic Church.

Not being rude But the Name Is the CATHOLIS CHURCH>>>>>>> Roman Cathloic Church was a bad word that was started about 1054 well afther the spitl

 

[peary]

Because Christ is head of the Church.

 

[Hisalone]

No, you prefer the term because you SAY it is more accurate.

Preference of a term doesn’t make it truthful, does it His?

If the Catholic Church is “Roman”, why does its catechism–an authoritative document–call itself the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

If we Catholics are really “Roman”, why do we not refer to the Pope as head of the “roman catholic church”? And what of all my fellow Catholics of the Eastern rites? They are as 'Catholic" as I, they are in COMMUNION with the POPE, but they aren’t “Roman”.

I am perfectly capable of being able to state why I say and do what I say and do. Many of you fellow Catholics commonly refer to themselves as Roman Catholics.

 

[Hisalone]

Because Christ is head of the Church.

You are 100% correct. He is the rock that the Church is built on.

 

[Bill_Pick]

You are 100% correct. He is the rock that the Church is built on.

Have you ever seen a sign that said Roman Cathloic Church or was it Just Cathloic Church

 

[Hisalone]

Have you ever seen a sign that said Roman Cathloic Church or was it Just Cathloic Church

Hi Bill hope you and your family are doing well

stpaulsprinceton.org/

nps.gov/history/nr/travel/Charleston/sma.htm

oldstjoseph.org/

stanastasia.org/

Bill I could go on and on but you get my point.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hi Bill hope you and your family are doing well

stpaulsprinceton.org/

nps.gov/history/nr/travel/Charleston/sma.htm

oldstjoseph.org/

stanastasia.org/

Bill I could go on and on but you get my point.

Thank You and I will check them out.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Thank You and I will check them out.

Well I have a vote for your side,you are #100 right and I,m wrong,if you can believe that,and it may be a first,Please do not tell my wife she will not believe you LOL
I have always said it was the Cathlioic Church,I never see a RCC,its always CC. so my first mistake in 43 years…Smile
Thank you for the info and I will try to watch what i,m doing Please DO NOT TELL MY WIFE

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Don’t be so quick to bow out, Bill.

It is “The Catholic Church”. (Check out the fact that our Catechism says “Catechism of the CATHOLIC Church” (not’ catechism of the ROMAN Catholic Church).

Now, the U.S. has always had more Protestants than Catholics. Catholics are a larger ‘single’ group than any denomination of Protestants, but put all the Protestants together and they outnumber Catholics.

Add in the fact that in many cities you had "Anglo’ Catholic Churches (The Anglican/Episcopal Church was in the U.S. very early and until recently in many areas was extremely strong, and had a lot of ‘well-to-do’ people in it.)

So they would put up a sign, “St. Luke’s Catholic Church”.

Also, many ‘old Catholics’ (a group not in communion with Rome), or groups like the Polish National Catholics, were in areas too.

So when a ‘Latin’ Catholic church would start up in a town like this, where the name ‘catholic’ had already been ‘taken’, they would often put in “Roman”.

Also the Irish (bless them), who were among the first to get the “Roman” and “papist” levels slapped onto them, did what so many Catholics through the centuries have done. . .they ‘turned the other cheek.’ THEY knew that they were ‘Catholic’, they knew that the term "roman’ was a slur–but they cheerfully accepted that ‘slur’ in a Christ-like humility. If the Sassenach and lobster backs were going to call them “Roman”, then by golly and St. Patrick, they would show them that ROMAN wasn’t a ‘bad name’. They would make their people proud because they would build a strong church and a strong people.

That’s why even now, when there are those of us who are trying to put the record straight because the invective has switched from just trying to call us "roman’ as an insult about the POPE, and attempting to make it look as though we are "roman’ because of CONSTANTINE, we still aren’t going to go around and shy away from the name itself.

I am a CATHOLIC. You Protestants want to call me a “Roman” because my leader is in Rome --fine.
But you want to call me “Roman” and then try to backpedal that into lying and saying it’s because my church wasn’t the ‘first’ and that the Romans came in and ‘took over’ or something–and I will protest–not the NAME you call me, but the LIE in trying to state that we were NOT Christ’s first Church under St. Peter.

That’s what we object to–not that you call us “roman” but that you LIE and say the "Roman’ church was not the “Real” Catholic Church.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Well I have a vote for your side,you are #100 right and I,m wrong,if you can believe that,and it may be a first,Please do not tell my wife she will not believe you LOL
I have always said it was the Cathlioic Church,I never see a RCC,its always CC. so my first mistake in 43 years…Smile
Thank you for the info and I will try to watch what i,m doing Please DO NOT TELL MY WIFE

Wow, You guy have me cofuesed IM a Cathloic or IM, a RCC, can I just be a good guy and let you fight it out…HELP

 

[Hisalone]

Wow, You guy have me cofuesed IM a Cathloic or IM, a RCC, can I just be a good guy and let you fight it out…HELP

LOL you are a good guy Bill and you can be whichever you want.

 

[Bill_Pick]

LOL you are a good guy Bill and you can be whichever you want.

Thank You and good luck to you and God bless you

 

[Tomster]

All well and good except for your understanding of “Church”

I believe you and I have been through this elsewhere but just as a refresher for you the Church of Christ is the visible (key word here) religious society, distinct from the synagogue, instituted directly by Christ, under one head, the pope, for the purpose of preserving and propogating his teaching, and of safeguarding and using the same means of salvation (sacrifice and sacraments). It has certain marks by which it may be known. It enjoys the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and Christ has promised to be with it “all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matthew 28:20), so that it is indefectible. He has commanded all men to join the Church, which is the one ark of salvation for all.

 

[Tomster]

You have NOT touched the question.

At some point, there were a stack of books claiming to be divine. At some point, these books were sorted. Some became the Bible.

I want to know aboutt that process.

So would I. According to Hisalone’s thought process the Bible just dropped out of the sky, proclaimed itself the Word of God and demanded that all believe in them. If that were the case, I would like to hear Hisalone’s explanation of how and why, after Luther’s revolt, Protestantism shortened the accepted canon of Scripture and by whose authority this was done. According to Hisalone, the Catholic Church got the canon wrong and all true believers were misled for 1500 years or so which would have negated the Holy Spirit’s guiding influence. According to Hisalone’s thought process someone could come along at some point in time and either add or subtract books from Scripture.