Doctrinal Error

[juicekman]

In its history, has the Catholic Church ever been wrong in a doctrinal declaration? Thanks for your time.

 

[Joe_5859]

In its history, has the Catholic Church ever been wrong in a doctrinal declaration? Thanks for your time.

Short answer: No.

 

[Bear_Claw]

In its history, has the Catholic Church ever been wrong in a doctrinal declaration? Thanks for your time.

There’s no way that a Catholic will EVER admit to an error. They firmly and fastly beleive that it’s all true.

This thread may go the route of protestants saying yes, and giving examples, and Catholic defending them, but it’s all subjective, absed on your point of view (and for this statemnt I’ll also be reprimanded )

 

[Joe_5859]

There’s no way that a Catholic will EVER admit to an error. They firmly and fastly beleive that it’s all true.

This thread may go the route of protestants saying yes, and giving examples, and Catholic defending them, but it’s all subjective, absed on your point of view (and for this statemnt I’ll also be reprimanded )

You’re right, I will reprimand you for this statement. (just kidding…this is not an official reprimand)

I see you’re point, but I don’t think it’s all subjective. There is an objective truth that either the Catholic Church has been wrong in a doctrinal declaration or they haven’t. The question is, is it possible for any of us subjective beings to ever know what this objective truth is?

 

[Bear_Claw]

You’re right, I will reprimand you for this statement. (just kidding…this is not an official reprimand)

I see you’re point, but I don’t think it’s all subjective. There is an objective truth that either the Catholic Church has been wrong in a doctrinal declaration or they haven’t. The question is, is it possible for any of us subjective beings to ever know what this objective truth is?

No it’s not possible, because religious truth will never be objective. It’s always going to be from someone’s perspective.
For something to be objectively true, it needs to stand apart from the institution it’s addressing. and if there ever was such a religion, then well, it would have been proven by science and all of rational thinking would have converted…since it can be objectively proven.

 

[Joe_5859]

No it’s not possible, because religious truth will never be objective. It’s always going to be from someone’s perspective.
For something to be objectively true, it needs to stand apart from the institution it’s addressing. and if there ever was such a religion, then well, it would have been proven by science and all of rational thinking would have converted…since it can be objectively proven.

Well, that’s your subjective opinion, but is it objectively true?

I would say that whether something is objectively true and whether something can be objectively proven are two separate issues.

The question in the OP can lead to two possible answers:

1. 
   *]The Catholic Church has never been wrong in one of its doctrinal declarations; or
   *]The Catholic Church has been wrong in one of its doctrinal declarations.
   
   One of these statements must be objectively true and one of these statements must be objectively false. However, just because something is objectively true does not mean each individual subject will come to the same conclusion.
   
   I would also add that something does not need to be proven by science in order to be proven. There are other ways to prove things than the scientific method.
   
   We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[fix]

it would have been proven by science and all of rational thinking would have converted…since it can be objectively proven.

You mean the only objective truth man can know is through science?

 

[Bear_Claw]

Well, that’s your subjective opinion, but is it objectively true?

I never said it was. All this is subjective. Mine, yours, everyone’s.

I would say that whether something is objectively true and whether something can be objectively proven are two separate issues.

I disagree. If you claim that something is objectively true, you need to provide proof of that statement, otherwise it will be dismissed as an “opinion”.

The question in the OP can lead to two possible answers:

1. 
   *]The Catholic Church has never been wrong in one of its doctrinal declarations; or
   *]The Catholic Church has been wrong in one of its doctrinal declarations.

1. 
   

   One of these statements must be objectively true and one of these statements must be objectively false.

   True and false yes, but objectively? No.
   

   However, just because something is objectively true does not mean each individual subject will come to the same conclusion.

   Um, yes it does. Here is the dictionary definition for objectively:
   1. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
   2. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
   So, we see that your statement is flawed. Objectivity calls for something to be so independently of someone’s perception, beliefs, ideas or anything. It’s to be based on facts.
   

   I would also add that something does not need to be proven by science in order to be proven. There are other ways to prove things than the scientific method.

   Sure, yes. I stand corrected. It can be proven historically too…and that’s where we are getting at here. Is there enough evidence to prove this factual…Objectively factual through history or science? Never my friend…not objectively. At some point your conclusions are going to bring you to a point where Why and how cannot be satisfied anymore, except with one answer…you must have faith. Then, all objectivity goes out the window.
   

   We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

   I don’t think so…

 

[Bear_Claw]

You mean the only objective truth man can know is through science?

“I stand corrected. It can be proven historically too…and that’s where we are getting at here.”

 

[Joe_5859]

Bear Claw,

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t want to deviate from the OP’s original question any more than I’ve already done.

God bless!

 

[fix]

“I stand corrected. It can be proven historically too…and that’s where we are getting at here.”

But, you are claiming objective truth can only be known through some materialistic way, right? What I am trying to understand is why you limit it to science and history? What criteria are you using?

 

[fix]

Bear Claw,

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t want to deviate from the OP’s original question any more than I’ve already done.

God bless!

Not sure you are deviating. To prove, or disprove, the Church has erred we need to agree on a system of evaluation.

 

[Bear_Claw]

But, you are claiming objective truth can only be known through some materialistic way, right? What I am trying to understand is why you limit it to science and history? What criteria are you using?

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.

 

[Lujack]

One will not be able to prove or disprove that a doctrine of the Church is right or wrong; that’s a matter of faith. I mean, it isn’t possible to prove that Mary was immaculately conceived before judgment day (although Catholics are required to believe it, and it is possible to find Scripture that supports it).

What it is possible to do, though, is to show that the Church has remained consistent it what it defines as doctrine.

 

[Joe_5859]

Not sure you are deviating. To prove, or disprove, the Church has erred we need to agree on a system of evaluation.

You do have a point there. We need to establish the parameters or else we will just go on for pages and pages talking past each other.

What it is possible to do, though, is to show that the Church has remained consistent it what it defines as doctrine.

I think that’s where we would have to focus our energies. Obviously, in a mixed crowd, we’re not going to agree on whether everything the Church teaches is true, but we can discuss whether or not the Church has been consistent in her doctrinal teaching.

In this case, it’s much easier to try to disprove the assertion than to prove it. We would have to restate every Church document from 2000 years and then say “See, there are no contradictions.” On the other hand, if there are inconsistencies, someone should be able to point those out. In which case, then we can discuss whether the inconsistency is actual or apparent or whether it is accurate that the Church taught such a thing.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Like changing the Doctrine of Limbo?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bear claw

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.

To do so would require proving everything the Catholic Church has ever taught. I personally don’t know anyone who is willing to sit still that long for such and endless series of proofs. More to the point, if anyone is going to tell the world that the Catholic Church has taught just one doctrinal error, that must be backed up in a rational way. I don’t believe anyone has done it, though subjectively they may want to believe they have done it!

 

[tobinatorstark]

Well, that’s your subjective opinion, but is it objectively true?

I would say that whether something is objectively true and whether something can be objectively proven are two separate issues.

The question in the OP can lead to two possible answers:

1. 
   *]The Catholic Church has never been wrong in one of its doctrinal declarations; or
   *]The Catholic Church has been wrong in one of its doctrinal declarations.
   
   One of these statements must be objectively true and one of these statements must be objectively false. However, just because something is objectively true does not mean each individual subject will come to the same conclusion.
   
   I would also add that something does not need to be proven by science in order to be proven. There are other ways to prove things than the scientific method.
   
   We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

1. 
   I agree with your statement. If the the Church had produced some kind of doctrinal error the Church would have caught it and retracted the error and burned any document that contained the error.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Hi there.

Pardon me, I’ve gotta ask this, but I do it in an ecumenical fashion.

if there are inconsistencies, someone should be able to point those out. In which case, then we can discuss whether the inconsistency is actual or apparent or whether it is accurate that the Church taught such a thing.

Isn’t the Doctrine of “Limbo” a good example of this?

Thanks.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

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.

Otherwise, we’ll simply say there were no doctrinal errors.