Doctrinal Error

[Neil_Anthony]

It is an error, but not taught by the magisterium.

the bishops aren’t the magesterium??? They’re just some guys with funny hats who write complicated letters to catholics?

 

[fix]

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.

Just to be more specific what you are saying is that you reject the proof. That does not mean the proof is invalid. It means you refuse to accept what is true. That is the a big difference.

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

I think facts show that the magisterium has never taught error. I think that because it is true.

I am not intending to be smug, only accurate.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

I’m not trying to be smug and have apologized for taking your post as an insinuation that there must be some doctrinal error, which I perceived as smug.

There are many posters who come here and make accusations based on their lack of knowledge of the Catholic faith, or what they erroneously perceive Catholicism is. They throw out one issue and when corrected, often will throw out multiple issues in what seems to be an attempt to confound Catholics. Most of them, unwillingly to identify which Church they are affliated with as to avoid any criticism of their Church so they can maintain their agenda, usually seeking converts from the Catholic faith or simply to bash Catholicism.

Yes, I have studied Catholicism, prior to converting in 1985 and ever since. My faith leads me to believe what I have found to be truth. If a doctrinal error could be proven, it would make many Catholics stand back and take a second look.

These forums have been here along time and will probably be around for a much longer time. There’s no rush. If you wish to start a “charitable” thread on each individual issue you have trouble with, people will be happy to respond with explanations, in the same manner in which it was delivered.

 

[fix]

the bishops aren’t the magesterium??? They’re just some guys with funny hats who write complicated letters to catholics?

I offer this from the CCC:

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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.

Bear Claw,

Yes, of course, non-catholics will believe that some of those things things are errors! And we can’t prove that we’re correct. But that’s what we believe.

Catholics do believe that certain teachings are infallible and can not be in error. But we don’t believe that about every single thing the bishops or a pope say.

Actually, some catholics don’t believe that all those things are infallible… but its an infallible teaching that those things are infallible.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I offer this from the CCC:

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404

That’s interesting… perhaps we should write to Rome and let them know that bishops are writing letters on their own now! WHy would they write it if they have no authority!?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

That’s interesting… perhaps we should write to Rome and let them know that bishops are writing letters on their own now! WHy would they write it if they have no authority!?

They write because they *do *have authority to govern their flocks. However, their authority is not absolute unless it is confirmed by the pope and/or a council called by the pope. Throughout history any number of bishops have taught heresy, as did the Arian bishops in the early Church, but their authority was subordinate to councils of the Church who ruled them out of order; much as a president or congress can govern according to certain laws enacted by them, but their authority can be overturned by the Supreme Court, the court of last resort.

 

[fix]

Here’s another example of an error:

In 1864, Pope Pius IX declared that these statements are erroneous:

But later, at Vatican II, the church contradicted this, and said

So I think it’s safe to say that the syllabus of errors may have had some errors of its own.

What do you make of this?

 

[Bear_Claw]

Just to be more specific what you are saying is that you reject the proof. That does not mean the proof is invalid. It means you refuse to accept what is true. That is the a big difference.

What I’m saying is that you don’t have any proof that will satisfy anyone without faith.

I think facts show that the magisterium has never taught error. I think that because it is true.

It’s true from a Catholic point of view. Facts, as taught by Catholics, show things biased towards Catholics.

 

[fix]

What I’m saying is that you don’t have any proof that will satisfy anyone without faith.

Yes, but that dissatisfaction does not invalidate the proof or truth of the matter.

IOW, what is true is not determined by how many people accept or reject some concept.

It’s true from a Catholic point of view. Facts, as taught by Catholics, show things biased towards Catholics.

No, the truth is objective. Like saying 2+2=4 is subjective, when it is not subjective.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Yes, but that dissatisfaction does not invalidate the proof or truth of the matter.

The fact remains that Catholicism cannot be objetively proven.

IOW, what is true is not determined by how many people accept or reject some concept.

Yes, but Catholicism does not fall under this category of Truth. The truth you are describing is objective truth and religion is not that.

No, the truth is objective. Like saying 2+2=4 is subjective, when it is not subjective.

2+2 = 4 is proven truth.

here’s the short and skinny dialogue we’ll have:

It’s true because the Bible says so.
What is the bible’s authority?
It’s the word of God.
Prove it
I can’t it’s a matter of faith

 

[fix]

The fact remains that Catholicism cannot be objetively proven.

Why not?

Yes, but Catholicism does not fall under this category of Truth. The truth you are describing is objective truth and religion is not that.

It certainly does fall under that category. It seems you take the word objective to mean only that which can be verified through science or some materialistic means?

2+2 = 4 is proven truth.

Proven by mathematics, yes.

here’s the short and skinny dialogue we’ll have:

It’s true because the Bible says so.
What is the bible’s authority?
It’s the word of God.
Prove it
I can’t it’s a matter of faith

By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Why not?

OK, so prove to me that Catholicism is true by rational, non faith-based means.

It seems you take the word objective to mean only that which can be verified through science or some materialistic means?

Yes,
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.

For Catholicism, or Christianity for that matter, to be objectively true, it has to be true outside of the Christian reference frame.

By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works.

That may be true, but how do you arrive at Catholicism or Christianity as opposed to Islam or Judaism? Through Faith. Through the Bible.
Then, refer to my post above.

 

[fix]

OK, so prove to me that Catholicism is true by rational, non faith-based means.

Yes,
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.

For Catholicism, or Christianity for that matter, to be objectively true, it has to be true outside of the Christian reference frame.

That may be true, but how do you arrive at Catholicism or Christianity as opposed to Islam or Judaism? Through Faith. Through the Bible.
Then, refer to my post above.

We seem to be talking past each other as you define rational to mean rationalism as in only believing what you can see or hear or smell or some such thing.

The proof you want is the proof according to your limited criteria. But, that limited way to understand is not sufficient.

I offer this:

In the Enlightenment, reason was elevated above faith that was treated as superstition and myth in the conviction that reason alone, freed from prejudices and any external sentimental interferences may arrive at true cognition with accuracy and precision. This intellectual pride of reason, which set itself its own method and sphere of activity ended finally in the self-limitation of positivism, in which reason arbitrarily limits not only its own possibility of knowing, but even the existence of that reality which it cannot ascertain and measure according to its own arbitrarily chosen methods.

The refusal to view the metaphysical ground of reality is a form of enslavement of the reason that locks itself in its own self-defined prison. As such this refusal becomes an ideology that blocks the mind and disenables it from seeing what to another more open mind is obvious. Skepticism about the cognitive possibilities of the mind ends in shortsightedness that is ultimately nihilist…

 

[Bear_Claw]

We seem to be talking past each other as you define rational to mean rationalism as in only believing what you can see or hear or smell or some such thing.

The proof you want is the proof according to your limited criteria. But, that limited way to understand is not sufficient.

Yes, we are talking past each other. My proof is according to all reason, something that would make it acceptable to all people. What you call “limited” is the benchmark of the world. To go from what you label as “limited” to something that’s acceptable for you involves faith.

I offer this:

In the Enlightenment, reason was elevated above faith that was treated as superstition and myth in the conviction that reason alone, freed from prejudices and any external sentimental interferences may arrive at true cognition with accuracy and precision. This intellectual pride of reason, which set itself its own method and sphere of activity ended finally in the self-limitation of positivism, in which reason arbitrarily limits not only its own possibility of knowing, but even the existence of that reality which it cannot ascertain and measure according to its own arbitrarily chosen methods.

The refusal to view the metaphysical ground of reality is a form of enslavement of the reason that locks itself in its own self-defined prison. As such this refusal becomes an ideology that blocks the mind and disenables it from seeing what to another more open mind is obvious. Skepticism about the cognitive possibilities of the mind ends in shortsightedness that is ultimately nihilist…

This was written by the Papal Theologian. And it calls for us to go beyond reason and acquire faith in order to understand metaphysics.

As soon as you apply faith to concepts, you require the student to apply something out of belief and not proven fact. The thread of rationality is lost at that point. Also the student then immediately comes under the influence of human beings and leaves himself open to be swayed in one direction or another.

Basic metaphysics are still being pondered…whether there is one god, many gods, or no gods, or whether it’s impossible to know these things.

But to go from basic metaphysical exploration to believing Christianity is also another matter. That requires a whole lot of faith. You can’t prove that to someone. It boils down to faith.

The article was written by the Papal Theologian…I think he already has a pretty good measure of faith, so subjectively, the requirements are all met, the logic moves in a straight path…but that is if you have the faith already. Otherwise the requirements to prove this cannot be met .

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Why not? It is objectively true that I was born on a certain day, and was given a certain name. The only way I know my birthdate and my name is by faith. There is no scientific way to prove either of these facts, nor are they mentioned in any history books that I am aware of - yet, they are facts.

It’s the same with Church teachings. They are true whether anyone believes them, or not. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an existing fact that will continue to exist (that is to say, she will remain perpetually a virgin) whether anyone believes in it or not. The Church teaches it, because it’s objectively true - it’s not just an emotional opinion, or a myth that helps us make sense of something else. In the same way that we can believe our parents when they tell us our names and our birthdates, we can also believe the Catholic Church, when it teaches us about the truths of the Catholic faith.

 

[fix]

Why not? It is objectively true that I was born on a certain day, and was given a certain name. The only way I know my birthdate and my name is by faith. There is no scientific way to prove either of these facts, nor are they mentioned in any history books that I am aware of - yet, they are facts.

It’s the same with Church teachings. They are true whether anyone believes them, or not. The perpetual virginity of Mary is an existing fact that will continue to exist (that is to say, she will remain perpetually a virgin) whether anyone believes in it or not. The Church teaches it, because it’s objectively true - it’s not just an emotional opinion, or a myth that helps us make sense of something else. In the same way that we can believe our parents when they tell us our names and our birthdates, we can also believe the Catholic Church, when it teaches us about the truths of the Catholic faith.

Very good. People live by faith every single day while denying they do at the same time.

 

[Bear_Claw]

Why not? It is objectively true that I was born on a certain day, and was given a certain name. The only way I know my birth date and my name is by faith. There is no scientific way to prove either of these facts, nor are they mentioned in any history books that I am aware of - yet, they are facts.

they are facts because you have a birth certificate that is given to you by a third party, non-biased institution, you are registered at the hospital and you can get the sworn statements and eye witness accounts from your mother, doctors and nurses.

You have none of these things when proving Church teachings.
The institution is biased, because it *is *the church. There are no eye witness accounts because even the gospels were written long after the eye witnesses were dead, so you have hearsay as a document, backed up by an institution that has its own interests at heart…

Asking someone to believe that it’s 100% true is asking someone to have faith.

It’s the same with Church teachings. They are true whether anyone believes them, or not.

if you have faith

The perpetual virginity of Mary is an existing fact that will continue to exist (that is to say, she will remain perpetually a virgin) whether anyone believes in it or not.

if you have faith

The Church teaches it, because it’s objectively true - it’s not just an emotional opinion, or a myth that helps us make sense of something else.

You are describing something here that requires faith. it’s a subjective statement.
Specifically this statement is not even 100% provable by scripture and required a decree from the Pope to be added into doctrine.

In the same way that we can believe our parents when they tell us our names and our birthdates, we can also believe the Catholic Church, when it teaches us about the truths of the Catholic faith.

No, you can do research and find the facts for yourself, validated by third party, non-biased institutions and eye witnesses and signed copies, etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

they are facts because you have a birth certificate that is given to you by a third party, non-biased institution, you are registered at the hospital and you can get the sworn statements and eye witness accounts from your mother, doctors and nurses.

You have none of these things when proving Church teachings.
The institution is biased, because it *is *the church. There are no eye witness accounts because even the gospels were written long after the eye witnesses were dead, so you have hearsay as a document, backed up by an institution that has its own interests at heart…

Asking someone to believe that it’s 100% true is asking someone to have faith.

if you have faith if you have faith You are describing something here that requires faith. it’s a subjective statement.
Specifically this statement is not even 100% provable by scripture and required a decree from the Pope to be added into doctrine.

No, you can do research and find the facts for yourself, validated by third party, non-biased institutions and eye witnesses and signed copies, etc.

What does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[jmcrae]

It was from the bishops conference in my country (canada) - the Winnipeg Statement.

Which was soundly denounced by the Magisterium, as I recall. (If I am recalling the story correctly, the church or building where the statement was drafted was also struck by lightning and burned to the ground, which may or may not have been a commentary from God Himself on the contents of the document - the Bishops involved, of course, said that it was merely a coincidence.)

Yes, this particular document contained errors in moral teaching - which is why it was rejected by the Church. It was never, ever promulgated by the Vatican as an official teaching of the Church.