Cannot err in doctrine

[Hisalone]

where do Catholics get this concept?

 

[Discerning2]

where do Catholics get this concept?

To Peter, Christ says in 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.”

I don’t know if that is a complete answer, and I think that scripture quote goes to excommunication more than broader doctrine. I think the questioner wants to know how can we say with authority, “we know this concept is truth because we say it is.” I don’t know this for sure either.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

To Peter, Christ says in 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.”

I don’t know if that is a complete answer, and I think that scripture quote goes to excommunication more than broader doctrine. I think the questioner wants to know how can we say with authority, “we know this concept is truth because we say it is.” I don’t know this for sure either.

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.

 

[1ke]

where do Catholics get this concept?

From Christ.

His mission of salvation included revealing the Truth needed for salvation. He led the Apostles into “all truth.” God had revealed himself indirectly in prior generations, preparing the way for the Incarnation-- God revealing himself fully. We see many places in the bible where the Apostles are given authority to teach, where Christ talks about truth and correcting doctrines gone astray (for example, the teaching of Moses on divorce).

Christ wants **all **to come to salvation. People need the Truth in their journey to salvation. Christ established the Church (i.e. the Bishops) to teach, preach, and adminster the Sacraments. He would not allow those he endowed with the job of teaching the Truth he came to reveal to teach error. The Holy Spirit prevents this by a special charism. It doesn’t mean they’ll never sin or be wrong about things. It only means that when the Church (as a body-- The Bishops in Council or with the Pope or the Pope ex cathedra) teaches in faith and morals binding on the whole Church it will be protected from error by divine grace.

 

[lozeerose]

It is my understanding that the verse of Matthew 16:19 goes towards authority (to make decisions and interpret doctrine), however, the second part of the previous verse (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.

Here Christ gurantees that the Church He is establishing on Peter (his office), the Rock, will not falter. Failure of the Church to maintain Truth would be a victory for the Enemy. And in that case we could state that God IS NOT…so why even believe?

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

Perpetual Church
Is 9:6-7 - of Christ’s government there will be no end
Dan 2:44 - God’s kingdom shall stand forever
Dan 7:14 - His kingdom shall not be destroyed
Eph 3:21 - to him be glory in the church to all generations for ever & ever
Lk 1:32, 33 - no end to Christ’s kingdom
Mt 7:24 - Jesus is like a wise man who built his house on a rock
Mt 13:24-30 - let wheat & weeds grow together until harvest
Mt 16:18 - gates of hell will never prevail against Christ’s church
Jn 14:16 - Holy Spirit will be with you always
Mt 28:19-20 - I am with you all days

Becasue of my poor memory I use this Bible Cheat Sheet: thecatholicconvert.webs.com/biblecheatsheet.html

Hope that helps, God bless.

 

[James_S_Saint]

To Peter, Christ says in 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.”

I don’t know if that is a complete answer, and I think that scripture quote goes to excommunication more than broader doctrine.

How would this relate to excommunication??

 

[Verisimilitude]

where do Catholics get this concept?

This should help explain it.

In Matthew 28:18-20, we have Christ’s solemn commission to the Apostles delivered shortly before His Ascension: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”

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).

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[Discerning2]

How would this relate to excommunication??

Here is the footnote to the verse from the USCCB:

“14 [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . 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: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.”

Thaks for making me look that up!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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

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.

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.

 

[Andre1000]

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.

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!!!

 

[James_S_Saint]

but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended.

Well, thank you for looking that up.

But I have to tell you, that gives me a very serious sense of narcissism. It would have been a long time before I considered using the keys in that fashion or for that purpose.

 

[FCEGM]

where do Catholics get this concept?

You may find these two articles to be of help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a45.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a46.htm

 

[prodigal-sun]

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”. As a Cathllic you should try to first understand what papal infallibility means because if this last paragraph is indicitive of your understanding, I would say you a woefully mistaken. My advice would be to learn about infallibility before trying to show others about the churchs teaching.

ever 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.Once again this concept is a little out of step. If one were to understand this “loosed& bound” concept as you show here would be able to justify allowing Women preists. But of course that just isn’t correct because as we all know JPII quite clearly stated that the church has know authourity to Ordain women. If they could just loose & bind doctrine as they see fit then what JPII wrote would not make sense. I would think that as a Catholic (Ex-Protestant you would want to understand what the Church truly teaches on these matters. You may still not accept these beliefs as many I’m sure don’t but at least you would understand!

PEACE!

 

[AmateurPianist]

…implies the church can change a doctrine and heaven will honour the change.

Well this is an interesting statement. How can this be? Heaven is subject to the church? I don’t think so.

So if the church decided tomorrow that there is no such thing as purgatory, does God almighty shut down purgatory because the church said so? Because that is what you are saying.

 

[ralphinal]

Well this is an interesting statement. How can this be? Heaven is subject to the church? I don’t think so.

So if the church decided tomorrow that there is no such thing as purgatory, does God almighty shut down purgatory because the church said so? Because that is what you are saying.

This is where the Bible verses are important. First, we must understand that the binding and loosing is Rabinical language. the High Priest could bind and loose as needed when new situations called for it. That is passed on to Peter.

Now, specific to your question, the only times that this official power is used is when the Holy Spirit moves the Church. In other words, when the Spirit is leading the Church to Truth. If the Pope proclaimed that Purgatory no longer exists, his proclamation is not what ended it. It was ended and the Spirit had him proclaim it, making it part of the faith

 

[AmateurPianist]

This is where the Bible verses are important. First, we must understand that the binding and loosing is Rabinical language. the High Priest could bind and loose as needed when new situations called for it. That is passed on to Peter.

Now, specific to your question, the only times that this official power is used is when the Holy Spirit moves the Church. In other words, when the Spirit is leading the Church to Truth. If the Pope proclaimed that Purgatory no longer exists, his proclamation is not what ended it. It was ended and the Spirit had him proclaim it, making it part of the faith

OK.

But that is not the same as what the other poster said.

When he said

heaven will honour the change

that in plain English means that heaven changes in response to what the church changed.

Actually purgatory was not the most outrageous example I thought of.

I also wondered how this would work if the church decided tomorrow to change the doctrine of the Trinity to say the one that the Oneness Pentecostals hold. Would two parts of the trinity simply cease operating if that happened?

I don’t think that sentence was thought through at all.

 

[ralphinal]

OK.

But that is not the same as what the other poster said.

When he said

that in plain English means that heaven changes in response to what the church changed.

Actually purgatory was not the most outrageous example I thought of.

I also wondered how this would work if the church decided tomorrow to change the doctrine of the Trinity to say the one that the Oneness Pentecostals hold. Would two parts of the trinity simply cease operating if that happened?

I don’t think that sentence was thought through at all.

Maybe I do not understand it right, but it was how I was taught and it is how I understand it from what I read.

When something is bound on earth, it means that the faith is to reflect that teaching, and that is honored in heaven. For example, the idea of an indulgence. The Pope can proclaim something on earth and it is like that in heaven.

For the Pope to proclaim something that is different from our current understanding of God is another story. Some things are known on earth because God made it known it was this way. The Trinity is one of them. If the Pope changed the teaching, it would mean that God had to reveal that it was changed to him.

Can you see the difference? I don’t know if I am making sense.

The Pope is unable to teach that God is not a Trinity because it is not true. The Pope is able to proclaim that certain acts, done a certain way, carry eternal rewards. Likewise, the Pope can proclaim dogmas to clear up heresies.

 

[manualman]

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.

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.

 

[AmateurPianist]

When something is bound on earth, it means that the faith is to reflect that teaching, and that is honored in heaven. For example, the idea of an indulgence. The Pope can proclaim something on earth and it is like that in heaven.

That Scripture has always sort of baffled me. Leaving out the issue of who the “you” refers to, the Scripture clearly says that heaven binds in response to what is bound in earth.

In other words what is done in heaven is a response to what is done in earth.

Then I scratch my head trying to think of an example where that actually is done.

The one example I can come up with is Acts 3:6 where Peter pronounces healing to the lame man in the name of Jesus Christ. Perhaps the miracle that did occur was a response to the pronouncement of Peter and the authority he possessed as an apostle. I am interested in arguments pro and con in this case.

If that is the case, then with all due respect to Benny Hinn, I know of nobody that has that type of authority today.

 

[AmateurPianist]

1. 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).

Good example. So I have wondered exactly how this works:

Option 1. Heaven responds to the church. The church decides which books of the NT are canonical and which are not. Heaven responds “Works for me” and it is true in heaven from that point in time forth.

Option 2. The church responds to heaven. Heaven knows which books are canonical and which are not. Heaven gives the church the wisdom, grace, and discernment to declare which works are canonical and which are not. The church proclaims what has already been true in heaven.

It would seem to me that only Option 1 could be binding and loosing per Matthew 16:19. But I don’t believe that is how it works.