Has the Church ever been wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Dummy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People in the Church have done wrong things; even the first Pope, St Peter denied Christ three times.

However; whilst people in the Church are fallible; the Church has never declared something a teaching of the Church that later proved to be wrong.
 
JohnDamian

People in the Church have done wrong things; even the first Pope, St Peter denied Christ three times.

Peter was not yet pope when he denied Christ, but your point is well taken. It is impossible to find anywhere in Church history that the Church has rescinded a doctrine once it has been finally defined.
 
Big_Dummy said:
Has the Church ever been wrong?
Click to expand...
If by that you mean has the Church ever declared a dogma that is wrong? No.

If by that you mean has the Church ever given moral directives that are wrong? No.

Popes and priests and lay Catholics can be unfaithful to the Lord and very great sinners; but the promises of Our Lord Jesus Christ still stand. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. Thanks be to God! Thanks to the saints who are models for us! Thanks to our holy and Blessed Mother!
 
How exactly were Galileo’s execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.
 
Christ, being the Living Son of God, taught us, suffered for us, died and rose again in order to establish HIs Church to help us on the path to eternal salavation. Christ promised He would send the Holy Spirit to guide HIS church and that he would be with us until the end of time. We have Christ’s personal assurance that what the Catholic Church teaches is what Christ wants taught.

This assurance rest with the Pope when he speaks 'ex cathedra" - from the chair. It does necessarily rest with everything a Pope says nor with the teachings of other lower churchmen when their teaching conflicts with dogma established ex cathedra.

There were those who misunderstood Christ and argued against him. There were those who argued against the Apostles who had the power to speak for Christ. There are those today who misunderstand and argue against the Church, even though they may be well meaning.

KNOWING that Christ established HIS church and enpowered it with the Holy Spirit, it will not teach the most basic and important principles of our Faith that would be contrary to Christ.

The Church is 2,000 years old. It does refresh its teachings in its constant effort to reach the people of that time and to address then current concerns or misunderstandings. But, nothing is in conflict with prior teachings.
 
How exactly were Galileo’s execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
Click to expand...
Galileo died of a Heart attack; he was not killed by the Church; although he was confined to his Villa at Arcetri in the French Countryside; not for his Scientific opinion; but for his teaching of heresy.

The Spanish Inquisition was a Secular organisation founded to replace the Papal Inquisition which admittedly was imperfect. However; the Papal inquisition forbade mutilation, bloodshed or murder; although in the Papal Bull “Ad exstirpanda” some tortures were permitted so long as they did not result in death; bloodshed or mutilation. This was an example of a failure of an individual within the Church to adhere to the teachings of the Church.

The Catholic Church in World War II saved more Jewish people than any other organisation; although it’s failure to give an official condemnation was poor. However the Church has always maintained that murder is a grave sin.

And so on…

Whilst it is certainly true that the Church has individuals who are flawed in it; that is no surprise.** If we did not have flawed Catholics we would not need the Sacrament of Reconcilliation (Confession)**.

However; arguing that the Church has never Taught something that is wrong is a true statement; even if some of the members of the Church have fallen short of it’s teachings.
 
mcteague said:
How exactly were Galileo’s execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.
Click to expand...
A failure to live the Catholic proposition does not negate the proposition.
 
mcteague said:
How exactly were Galileo’s execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.
Click to expand...
You have been answered by another poster, but I need to add something. Did you not read the previous posts? It is not being said that the Church is infallibly correct in everything all its members do and say, only in the teaching of faith and morals given by the God-given authority of the Church. Very sinful people are everywhere, but that does not change the truth of what Christ has taught us.
 
Yes, you are all correct at least from a certain perspective. John, special thanks for correcting me about Galileo. One of those things where you hear the wrong thing so often you forget the truth. My history professors are spinning in their graves.

The question however was extremely broad and vague. It did not seem correct to let the response; the church represents God and God is never wrong therefore the church can not be wrong; go without a bit more clarification.
It should be noted that not retracting or changing a position only demonstrates consistency, or an unwillingness to admit error, not that it has not been wrong.
I think only a small number of things have been stated under the Popes infallability. Some people seem to mistakenly think everything any Pope ever said should be treated as if it came directly from God.
A lot depends on how we define the church and wrong.
It certainly safe to say the the church has been consistent throughout it’s history, and that humans, some of them representing the Church, have made errors.
Whether that means the church has been wrong is a matter of interpretation.
The argument that it has not been wrong is not invalid, if you take the question in a particular way. And of course on who is being asked
 
mcteague said:
How exactly were Galileo’s execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.
Click to expand...
“Galileo’s execution”? That would almost be funny but it is absolutely not true. Please tell me - where did you read that?

Thanks,
Ed
 
It is very sad to read about what the Church “officially” did or did not do regarding the Jews during World War II. At times, it appears to be ignorance based on believing certain published falsehoods.

cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a039.html

The Church did a great deal, but since it is the enemy of the Secularist, the truth must be obscured or buried for political reasons.

God bless,
Ed
 
Dorothy said:
You have been answered by another poster, but I need to add something. Did you not read the previous posts? It is not being said that the Church is infallibly correct in everything all its members do and say, only in the teaching of faith and morals given by the God-given authority of the Church. Very sinful people are everywhere, but that does not change the truth of what Christ has taught us.
Click to expand...
edwest2 said:
It is very sad to read about what the Church “officially” did or did not do regarding the Jews during World War II. At times, it appears to be ignorance based on believing certain published falsehoods.

cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a039.html

The Church did a great deal, but since it is the enemy of the Secularist, the truth must be obscured or buried for political reasons.

Dear Ed and Dorthy,

Yes, I did read the previous replies. However, I felt that some of them read like statements from a defense attorney. I simply fired off some things from memory showing areas where “the church” is seen by many to have been less than perfect. Some of these were less than historically accurate. But they are areas where the Church has been criticized.
I could have added the abuse scandals that have come to light in the last few years, and the way they
were handled. Should we really take the position that because no official proclamation advocating the buggering of alter boys that nothing wrong has occurred.
I actually have a great deal of regard for tbe good the Church has done. I have a cousin who is a missionary Nunn and nurse. And my father had been a Brother. So although I myself am considerably less devout I have a strong appreciation of the positive value of the church throughout its history. Sometimes, when I read rantings about the sin and unnaturalism of homosexuality here, I want to remind people that it was the catholic church that was first there to care for people who were dying of aids. That is what Catholics should be proud of. Not some of the things I have read on catholic answers.
I think it is a mistake to consider the church the enemy of the secularist. I would simply say it offers a way which it feels is better. But it is really only the enemy of a small section of that secular world.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
 
By the way, sorry for the peculiar editing. It is a bit hard to do this on my I phone

Cheers
 
mcteague said:
How exactly were Galileo’s execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.
Click to expand...
Was not Galileo censored when he was right and the church was wrong?

Nazis, what would you have done as the church and what would have been the consequences for the church in Germany?

As far as I know, illegitmate children is hearsay.

The thread is an outgrowth of a short discussion I had with a catholic friend off line. I asked him about Arius being a Bishop after the Trinity was defined at Nicea. He got mad, and said the church is never wrong and ran away. I could not but wonder, why Arius was not excomunicated by the Pope for good after Nicea, what exactly happened to put Arius back in power as Bishop? And, would not those catholics following him at that time be in danger of hell fire?

:o
 
mcteague said:
How exactly were Galileo’s execution, the inquisition, the failure to take a strong stand against the Nazis, or the illegitimate children of some popes not wrong. If you want to argue that because no things declared infallible have ever been retracted, you are really just avoiding the question. The church is composed of people. People are often wrong and do wrong. It is ridicules to suggest that a 2000 year old institution has never done wrong.
That of course does not mean that it has not also done many good and noble things.
Click to expand...
Because Catholics don’t see the actions of Church leaders as a reflection of the Church iteself. I have no idea why, and what the rationale is, but that’s how the Church teaches how Catholics are supposed to view the Church. Catholics are taught not to look at the actions of previous popes, bishops, theologians or other Church leaders or officials by those actions themselves and are taught that those actions do not reflect back on the Church. Catholics are taught to look at the dogma, theology and official teachings and notice that they are unchanging and consistent through time. Corruption within the Church, for example, would be a violation of a dogma such as all of a sudden teaching that the Immaculate Conception was a false teaching. Or if the Church body would change the contents of the Apostles or Nicene creeds – because they are unchanging by dogmatic teaching – that would be a corruption.

So for example, Church leaders like previous Popes and Bishops lead unsavory livestyles that might have included mistresses, and fathered children or covered for friends who did so, rather than seeing it as a teaching by example, and by judging the Church’s merits by the actions of it’s leaders, we are supposed to consider that those were just poor judgments or bad mistakes of those individuals rather than a reflection on the Church. So, the gates of Hell didn’t prevail when those sins or evils were done, rather they were poor choices of the one who commited the sins, and no reflection on the Church.

Or for example, with the priests who have molested children and haven’t been removed, or have been transferred to other parishes, or have otherwise been protected by the Church, we are supposed to look at those priests and their superiors as sinners, or those who have made mistakes or had poor judgement, and not as a reflection of the Church. So the gates of Hell don’t prevail even though priests who represent the Church commited these crimes, and they were shuffled around and not removed – it is not supposed to be a reflection on the Church itself, but on the priests and their superiors themselves.

I hope that makes sense. I’m not good at explaining that aspect of what the Church teaches. Maybe someone else can explain it better. But even if all the Church leaders are corrupt, we are not supposed to look at it as a reflection on the Church itself. When looking at the Church and it’s “corruptibility”, we are supposed to look at the dogma, theology and other teachings, which we are assured can never be wrong even though those who make the rules can be wrong in their personal lives.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world looking at the Church doesn’t see it that way because they were not taught that way. Usually institutions are judged by the merits of their leaders and other representatives. So I think that the sins of such leaders or authority figures are that much more detrimental because they DO reflect back on the Church. Many people believe the Catholic Church is corrupt from the inside out because the actions of those who represent the Church – which reflect back at the Church to non-Catholics. And even to some Catholics.
 
Big_Dummy said:
Was not Galileo censored when he was right and the church was wrong?

Nazis, what would you have done as the church and what would have been the consequences for the church in Germany?

As far as I know, illegitmate children is hearsay.

The thread is an outgrowth of a short discussion I had with a catholic friend off line. I asked him about Arius being a Bishop after the Trinity was defined at Nicea. He got mad, and said the church is never wrong and ran away. I could not but wonder, why Arius was not excomunicated by the Pope for good after Nicea, what exactly happened to put Arius back in power as Bishop? And, would not those catholics following him at that time be in danger of hell fire?

:o
Click to expand...
The Church considers herself infallible only on her teachings on faith and morals, teachings on the meaning of the gospel and the will of God for man. This in no way means that her members, whether pope, clergy, or laity, will act impeccably- that they will necessarily follow her teachings themselves, although they all should of course; no one should sin. But one of her teachings, that on Original Sin, practically guarantees us that humans can be expected to behave badly at times, operating at a level lower than they should, i.e. they will sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top