Doctrinal Error

  • Thread starter Thread starter juicekman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
juicekman said:
In its history, has the Catholic Church ever been wrong in a doctrinal declaration? Thanks for your time.
Click to expand...
Yes.

But they were not papel ex cathedra declarations, or declarations of ecumenical councils.
 
Bear_Claw said:
Hi there.
Isn’t the Doctrine of “Limbo” a good example of this?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Limbo was only advanced as a possibility, which is where it remains today. It was never taught as something to be believed.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Excuse me, but wouldn’t it be rational to point out a doctrine you might think was in error? So far the whole entire discussion has been on subjective and objective. 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t think it would necessarily be rational. I felt that we had to establish how to identify what “wrong” would be. We can’t answer the question effectively if it’s answered with bias.
Otherwise, we’ll simply say there were no doctrinal errors.
Click to expand...
Tsk, Tsk…
 
Bear_Claw said:
I don’t think it would necessarily be rational. I felt that we had to establish how to identify what “wrong” would be. We can’t answer the question effectively if it’s answered with bias.

Tsk, Tsk…
Click to expand...
Oh, do you know of some doctrinal errors you’d like to bring up?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Oh, do you know of some doctrinal errors you’d like to bring up?
Click to expand...
I haven’t studied Catholocism enough to suggest an error. Again, I felt that we had to establish how to identify what “wrong” would be. We can’t answer the question effectively if it’s answered with bias.
 
Bear_Claw said:
I haven’t studied Catholocism enough to suggest an error. Again, I felt that we had to establish how to identify what “wrong” would be. We can’t answer the question effectively if it’s answered with bias.
Click to expand...
Oh, I apologize for taking your posts as insinuation that there must be some doctrinal errors. A couple of us have told you already, there are none. Of course, we know that because we have studied Catholicism. 😉
 
juicekman said:
In its history, has the Catholic Church ever been wrong in a doctrinal declaration? Thanks for your time.
Click to expand...
The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:
  1. solemn definitions of the pope (which meet all the criteria taught by Vatican I)
  2. solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils
  3. the Universal Magisterium:
    “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” (LG, n. 25)
At all other times, the Magisterium teaches non-infallibly and non-irreformably, with the limited possibility of error on matters of faith or morals, but never to such an extent that any error or set of errors could lead the faithful away from salvation.
 
Bear_Claw said:
You need to be rational in this. If you are going to tell the world, or even an unbeliving enuirer that the Church has not taught any doctrinal errors, you need to back that up in a rational way. Faith cannot come in to play there.
Click to expand...
Not sure how you are using the word rational here but there is nothing irrational about faith.

If you mean we need to use exclusively proofs consisting of evidence from the natural world I think that can be done if we want to show the Church has never reversed Her teachings.
 
here’s a doctrinal error that the church taught:
  1. It is a fact that a certain number of Catholics, although admittedly subject to the teaching of the encyclical, find it either extremely difficult or even impossible to make their own all elements of this doctrine. In particular, the argumentation and rational foundation of the encyclical, which are only briefly indicated, have failed in some cases to win the assent of men of science, or indeed of some men of culture and education who share in the contemporary empirical and scientific mode of thought. We must appreciate the difficulty experienced by contemporary man in understanding and appropriating some of the points of this encyclical, and we must make every effort to learn from the insights of Catholic scientists and intellectuals, who are of undoubted loyalty to Christian truth, to the Church and to the authority of the Holy See. Since they are not denying any point of divine and Catholic faith nor rejecting the teaching authority of the Church, these Catholics should not be considered or consider themselves, shut off from the body of the faithful. But they should remember that their good faith will be dependent on a sincere self-examination to determine the true motives and grounds for such suspension of assent and on continued effort to understand and deepen their knowledge of the teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
  1. In the situation we described earlier in this statement (par. 17) the confessor or counsellor must show sympathetic understanding and reverence for the sincere good faith of those who fall in their effort to accept some point of the encyclical.
Click to expand...
  1. Counsellors may meet others who, accepting the teaching of the Holy Father, find that because of particular circumstances they are involved in what seems to them a clear conflict of duties, e.g., the reconciling of conjugal love and responsible parenthood with the education of children already born or with the health of the mother. I accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assure that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.
Click to expand...
 
Neil Anthony

Please identify the source of this quotation and explain briefly in your own words why it is heretical.

Thank you.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Neil Anthony

Please identify the source of this quotation and explain briefly in your own words why it is heretical.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
It was from the bishops conference in my country (canada) - the Winnipeg Statement.

I didn’t use the word heresy… I’m pretty sure it contains error though!

See section 26, which seems to say that people can ‘safely’ fail to accept and follow Humanae Vitae.
if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assure that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.
Click to expand...
 
Here’s another example of an error:

In 1864, Pope Pius IX declared that these statements are erroneous:
“every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” (No. 15) and that “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” (No. 78)"
Click to expand...
But later, at Vatican II, the church contradicted this, and said
“It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.”
Click to expand...
So I think it’s safe to say that the syllabus of errors may have had some errors of its own.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Here’s another example of an error:

So I think it’s safe to say that the syllabus of errors may have had some errors of its own.
Click to expand...
The OP asked specifically errors in doctrinal declarations. I don’t think this qualifies.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Oh, I apologize for taking your posts as insinuation that there must be some doctrinal errors. A couple of us have told you already, there are none. Of course, we know that because we have studied Catholicism. 😉
Click to expand...
Yeah, there are none from your point of view…I can name amany things that I perceive as doctrinal errors…and you can debunk me all you want, but at the end you’ll not be able to prove to me, someone who doesn’t subscribe to Catholic faith, that they are not errors.

This is a nutshell thread of a myriad of protestant vs Catholic debates on specific issues…Papal infallability, Transubstansiation, infant baptism, rules on sex, the list is endless.

Yes, you studied Catholcism, but your answers are essentially based on Faith. History and facts will only take you so far.

I’m sorry but I feel like I’m getting a very smug vibe from your replies…If I’m wrong, I appologise.
 
Bear_Claw said:
Yeah, there are none from your point of view…I can name amany things that I perceive as doctrinal errors…and you can debunk me all you want, but at the end you’ll not be able to prove to me, someone who doesn’t subscribe to Catholic faith, that they are not errors.

This is a nutshell thread of a myriad of protestant vs Catholic debates on specific issues…Papal infallabnility, Transubstansiation, infant baptism, rules on sex, the list is endless.

Yes, you studies Catholcism, but your answers are essentially based on Faith. History and facts will only take you so far.

I’m sorry but I feel like I’m getting a very smug vibe from your replies…If I’m wrong, I appologise.
Click to expand...
Speaking for myself, I can say that I am not trying to be smug. I don’t feel smug anyway. :o

I think you are right that this is a “nutshell thread”. The question in the OP basically opens the door to rehash any and every “Protestant vs. Catholic” debate that there is.

So which one should we start off with? 😛 😉 😃
 
Neil_Anthony said:
It was from the bishops conference in my country (canada) - the Winnipeg Statement.

I didn’t use the word heresy… I’m pretty sure it contains error though!

See section 26, which seems to say that people can ‘safely’ fail to accept and follow Humanae Vitae.
Click to expand...
It is an error, but not taught by the magisterium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top