Has the Church ever been wrong?

[LittleSoldier]

“growing up”? Compared to what?

“The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”

God bless,
Ed

Gee, Ed, look what I found at the following website:

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

“The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.”



Were you planning on giving the authors of that website the credit for this quote, or were you planning on just plagiarizing it and taking the credit for yourself? Sheesh!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

You know something interesting about this topic. I watched the History Channel do a coverage on the Exodus. Amazing show. They prove everthing written in Exodus though archaelology, geography, and natural disasters [provided by God of course]. The only thing missing? Is the Ark of the Covenant. Only problem with all of this? The Bible would have been off 100-years. Wish is very very possible when talking Exodus and OT.

But from watching this documentary, I believe dates could be slightly off. But the facts are strikingly accurate. So accurate I was shocked.

I always thought the NT was spot on the money. But with the OT I wasn’t sure about it. Now after seeing Exodus? I have no doubt Genesis is also very accurate.

Check it out its called…Exodus Decoded

Thank you for the recommendation, Gary. I checked and it is available at Amazon. It sounds really good!!

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

For your review:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

Please review the section on “CONTENT”

Thank you!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Uh, guys? The thread isn’t closed. We can still post.

Hello??

 

[Leela]

Because Catholics don’t see the actions of Church leaders as a reflection of the Church iteself…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.

What is it that possibly even *can *reflect back on the church? There is a game of hide the ball that gets played with the OP’s question so that it is impossible to even say what it could mean for the church to be wrong about anything. But then by the same token, it must not claim to be right about very much at all. It doesn’t mean anything to say that the church is always right when anything that it says that is wrong can be written off as not really what the church ever taught. How absurd it is to say “That wasn’t really the church, that was just some specific pope, bishop or group of popes, bishops, priests, and laity,” as though they are no reflection on the Church.

Whenever someone points out that the Church used to teach X but X turned out to have been false or morally wrong, the response is always, “yes, but that was never infallible dogma.” Where is the list of declarations that have been made as infallible dogma? What is it exactly that the church is right about?

 

[JDaniel]

What is it that possibly even *can *reflect back on the church? There is a game of hide the ball that gets played with the OP’s question so that it is impossible to even say what it could mean for the church to be wrong about anything. But then by the same token, it must not claim to be right about very much at all. It doesn’t mean anything to say that the church is always right when anything that it says that is wrong can be written off as not really what the church ever taught. How absurd it is to say “That wasn’t really the church, that was just some specific pope, bishop or group of popes, bishops, priests, and laity,” as though they are no reflection on the Church.

Whenever someone points out that the Church used to teach X but X turned out to have been false or morally wrong, the response is always, “yes, but that was never infallible dogma.” Where is the list of declarations that have been made as infallible dogma? What is it exactly that the church is right about?

Leela:

I guess we should then say that all of the people who drank the laced cool aid and died, in Guiana, were equally adherents of Jones’ theology, and equally subscribers to his deranged philosopies, as he was?

God bless,
jd

 

[Leela]

Leela:

I guess we should then say that all of the people who drank the laced cool aid and died, in Guiana, were equally adherents of Jones’ theology, and equally subscribers to his deranged philosopies, as he was?

God bless,
jd

I have no idea, but perhaps you can answer my question.

What is it exactly that the church has never been wrong about? What exactly is it now right about?

Is it right when it says that all women are unfit to be priests?
Is it right when it says that gays should not be married?
Is it right when it now says that abortion is murder?
Was it right when it taught that children don’t get their souls until the 40th day (ninety for girls)?
Was it right when it taught that unbaptized babies go to hell?
Was it right when it taught that charging interest is a sin?
Was it right when it changed its mind and said that charging interest is not a sin?
Was it right when it handed over Bruno to the authorities to be executed?
Was it right when it failed to hand over child molesters to the authorities?
Was it right when it allowed priests to marry?
Is it right now in forbidding priests to marry?
Was it right in 1950 when it declared that Mary bodily ascended into heaven?
If so, why didn’t it realize this sooner?

Certainly you’ll say that much of this was never declared infallibly. Should Catholics today only follow teachings that are declared infallibly? Or are Catholics free to think that what the Church now teaches on certain issues could be wrong?

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

I have no idea, but perhaps you can answer my question.

What is it exactly that the church has never been wrong about? What exactly is it now right about?

Is it right when it says that all women are unfit to be priests?

Well, that is not a reason for women not becoming Priests, and you know it!

Is it right when it says that gays should not be married?

Yes. “Marriage” is a tradition and a custom begun by the churched, not by gays, heretics, heathens, rapists, people who are given to bestiality, etc. It is not something to play with. It is a Sacrament. It is the Church’s to relieve itself of. That secular society grabbed hold of it and won’t let go is not a reason to just give up the fight to keep it pure.

Is it right when it now says that abortion is murder?

But, Leela, it is. Unless you merely call the unborn by a different name and then it’s OK.

Was it right when it taught that children don’t get their souls until the 40th day (ninety for girls)?

Document, please.

Was it right when it taught that unbaptized babies go to hell?

Document, please.

Was it right when it taught that charging interest is a sin?

In its context, in those times, it should have been! How is charging interest to the poor good?

Was it right when it changed its mind and said that charging interest is not a sin?

Different times, different referents.

Was it right when it handed over Bruno to the authorities to be executed?

Document, please.

Was it right when it failed to hand over child molesters to the authorities?

Document, please.

Was it right when it allowed priests to marry?

Yes. Is it wrong for the Church to think something through and change its mind? Then you’d have reason to call it some terrible names!

Is it right now in forbidding priests to marry?

Yes.

Was it right in 1950 when it declared that Mary bodily ascended into heaven?

Yes.

If so, why didn’t it realize this sooner?

Well, as I said earlier, we didn’t have the internet, email, computers, air mail, UPS, the US Postal Service, and many other faster methods of communication for most of the 2,000 years of Church history.

Certainly you’ll say that much of this was never declared infallibly.

Leela, you know I don’t say insipid things. I am different from you, in that regard, at least.

Should Catholics today only follow teachings that are declared infallibly? Or are Catholics free to think that what the Church now teaches on certain issues could be wrong?

Wow! you sure provided a litany of terrible atrocities to blame on the Church. I think you would be happy only if the Church was brought to its knees, or, run out of business. My goodness, all those terrible atrocities.

But, where is your righteous anger for secular society that almost permits the molestation of more than double the percentage of children? (I’d rather my kids be in Catholic School. Oh, that’s right, they were! Without incident, I might add. Covering multiple places and about 30 years during which some of the molestations were going on.)

Where is your righteous anger that women are allowed in the men’s dressing rooms, but, that imprimatur is not reciprocated?

Where is your righteous anger against the small minority of gays that won’t let it be, while the majority seem not to be vexed by it and would like them to stop it?

Where is your righteous anger against the killing of unborn babies?

Where is you righteous anger that, in Florida alone, over 1 million homes are in foreclosure, largely due to current increases in ARM interest rates, and the overall need for ARM’s in the first place - due to excessive interest rates over the previous decade?

God bless,
jd

 

[LittleSoldier]

What is it that possibly even *can *reflect back on the church? There is a game of hide the ball that gets played with the OP’s question so that it is impossible to even say what it could mean for the church to be wrong about anything. But then by the same token, it must not claim to be right about very much at all. It doesn’t mean anything to say that the church is always right when anything that it says that is wrong can be written off as not really what the church ever taught. How absurd it is to say “That wasn’t really the church, that was just some specific pope, bishop or group of popes, bishops, priests, and laity,” as though they are no reflection on the Church.

Whenever someone points out that the Church used to teach X but X turned out to have been false or morally wrong, the response is always, “yes, but that was never infallible dogma.” Where is the list of declarations that have been made as infallible dogma? What is it exactly that the church is right about?

That is a very good question!! I would like to know that, as well.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

GALILEO WAS EXECUTED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH??!!!???

Oy vey!! :bigyikes:

Galileo died of natural causes!! Where in the world did you get the idea that he was executed by anyone???

 

[JDaniel]

GALILEO WAS EXECUTED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH??!!!???

Oy vey!! :bigyikes:

Galileo died of natural causes!! Where in the world did you get the idea that he was executed by anyone???

LS:

Well, we made him go blind. (Probably by making him look at the sun too much, through his nifty telescope.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have no idea, but perhaps you can answer my question.

What is it exactly that the church has never been wrong about? What exactly is it now right about?

Is it right when it says that all women are unfit to be priests? The Church says it has no authority to ordain women.
Is it right when it says that gays should not be married? Yes. Marriage is by definition between one man and one woman.
Is it right when it now says that abortion is murder? Yes and it has always taught so.
Was it right when it taught that children don’t get their souls until the 40th day (ninety for girls)? Not a definitive teaching. You also conveniently leave out that even though this THEORY (which actually assigned a soul much earlier than the secular SCIENTIFIC IDEA OF QUICKENING IN THE 6th MONTH) spoke of ‘soul’, abortion at ANY POINT, including the earliest moment of conception, was still considered abortion, still considered a mortal sin.
Was it right when it taught that unbaptized babies go to hell? Never taught that. You’re confusing the Catholic Church with the puritans like Michael Wigglesworth.
Was it right when it taught that charging interest is a sin? Usury, undue interest. Not ‘charging interest’.
Was it right when it changed its mind and said that charging interest is not a sin? See above. UNDUE interest (usury) is sinful (still). Interest itself is not, because the whole monetary system has itself changed.
Was it right when it handed over Bruno to the authorities to be executed? You’re going to show me that this was official Catholic teaching with the papal bull and all, right?
Was it right when it failed to hand over child molesters to the authorities? You’re going to show me this was not just official Catholic teaching but official teaching everywhere, right? Because if it was, then where are the police NOW? BTW, you’re also going to hold your public school officials responsible for all the molesters they didn’t hand over. . .and you’re going to hold all the families responsible for the fathers and uncles that THEY didn’t have over, right? Right?
Was it right when it allowed priests to marry? Clerical celibacy is a DISCIPLINE.
Is it right now in forbidding priests to marry? Clerical celibacy is a DISCIPLINE.
Was it right in 1950 when it declared that Mary bodily ascended into heaven? Yes.
If so, why didn’t it realize this sooner? We did. Where’s your proof that this wasn’t taught and accepted as truth before? Do you think it came out of nowhere?

Certainly you’ll say that much of this was never declared infallibly. Should Catholics today only follow teachings that are declared infallibly? Or are Catholics free to think that what the Church now teaches on certain issues could be wrong?

Best,
Leela

Why don’t you consult the catechism? Definitive teachings, infallibility–you don’t really seem to understand them. Perhaps when you do you’ll be less confused.

 

[JDaniel]

Why don’t you consult the catechism? Definitive teachings, infallibility–you don’t really seem to understand them. Perhaps when you do you’ll be less confused.

Not a chance, Tantum!! :nope:

God bless,
jd

 

[Abu]

Leela
Whenever someone points out that the Church used to teach X but X turned out to have been false or morally wrong, the response is always, “yes, but that was never infallible dogma.”
Should Catholics today only follow teachings that are declared infallibly? Or are Catholics free to think that what the Church now teaches on certain issues could be wrong?

Very industrious answer Tantum ergo.

Leela has been informed on some of these topics previously, especially on usury, so her post is humbug. It is a fact that many are not really interested in truth, just in rearranging their prejudices as William James so aptly described such “thinking”. Post #49 clarifies.

The teaching of Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25, is clear as to even non-infallible doctrine on faith or morals:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

 

[grannymh]

Very industrious answer Tantum ergo.

Leela has been informed on some of these topics previously, especially on usury, so her post is humbug. It is a fact that many are not really interested in truth, just in rearranging their prejudices as William James so aptly described such “thinking”. Post #49 clarifies.

The teaching of Vatican II in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25, is clear as to even non-infallible doctrine on faith or morals:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

You started out referring to faith or morals. May I assume that judgments in your last sentence are also in the Catholic Church’s realm of faith and morals?

 

[Abu]

grannymh
May I assume that judgments in your last sentence are also in the Catholic Church’s realm of faith and morals?

Yes, that is what the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 25, is about:
“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.”
[See http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html ]

 

[Leela]

Leela has been informed on some of these topics previously, especially on usury, so her post is humbug.

My understanding is that the church once taught that charging any interest is a sin.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
"The First Council of Nicaea in 325, forbade clergy from engaging in usury[6] (canon 17). At the time “usury” simply mean interest of any kind, and the canon merely forbade the clergy to lend money on interest above one per cent per month. Later ecumenical councils applied this regulation to the laity.[6][7]

Lateran III decreed that persons who accepted interest on loans could receive neither the sacraments nor Christian burial.[8] Pope Clement V made the belief in the right to usury a heresy in 1311, and abolished all secular legislation which allowed it.[9] Pope Sixtus V condemned the practice of charging interest as “detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity.”[9]"

Later of course the Church changed its teaching.

I was told before that the Church was not officially wrong when it taught that people charging interest can’t receive the sacraments because that was never declared as infallible. Do I have that right Apu?

 

[grannymh]

Later of course the Church changed its teaching.

So what?

What has not changed is the path to heaven or hell. By the way, one’s denial of God, does not change God’s existence nor the path to His presence. Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[grannymh]

I was told before that the Church was not officially wrong when it taught that people charging interest can’t receive the sacraments because that was never declared as infallible. Do I have that right Apu?

Infallible refers to specific, duly defined and properly declared theological dogmas. Charging interest is a person’s action. Big difference.

 

[Leela]

So what?.

So buttons. I was trying to help answer the OP about whether the Church has ever been wrong about anything. You seem to be agreeing that it has. I agree. Of course it has. So what? Don’t ask me. I don’t see why it is such a big deal to admit that the Church has in at least some time in the past been wrong about at least one thing.