If one doctrine is wrong, they all could be wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elzee

Guest
I recently heard a priest say during his homily *“If the Church is ever proven wrong about one of it’s doctrine then we would not be able to trust any of its doctrine.” *The examples he used were the Assumption and if Jesus had siblings).

He was speaking in support of the Church being error free in regard to faith and morals. From the rest of his homily, I think **he was trying to make the point that because the Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit and claims not to teach in error when it comes to faith and morals, if even one of it doctrine was proven false it would make the *whole *concept and claim of not teaching error in regard to faith and morals fall apart. **

Does this make sense? Can anyone take this statement and expound upon it? I think I get what he is saying but am having a hard time getting my arms around the logic.
 
Our confidence in the entire Christian faith is based on the authority and infallibility of the Church in matters of faith and doctrine. Like Augustine said (perhaps in paraphrase), “I would not have believed the gospels if not for the authority of the Catholic Church.”

Catholics are very honest about the fact that even our trust in the Scriptures, in the canon depends on our faith in God through the Church to preserve them entire and accurately. If we can’t trust the Church to teach about faith and morals correctly, how can we trust her to interpret the Scripture correctly, or for that matter, to tell us what books are actually Scripture?

How could we trust the Church on one matter of faith or morals, if it’s wrong on other matters of faith and morals? If the Church were wrong about a longstanding teaching (such as, for instance, birth control) how could we trust that it would be right on a much newer issue (such as gay marriage)?

Fundamentally, if the Church were to be wrong (or be able to be wrong) on matters of faith and morals, we’d be reduced to relying on our own selves to determine faith and morals, and we’ve seen the sort of doctrinal and moral chaos that results from such an ecclesiology in the Protestant communities. And like your signature says: truth is not determine by a majority vote.

Jeremy
 
Well he’s talking like the Church is a house of cards. If one bit was found to be wrong then the idea that the Church is guided by God would be prooved untrue.
It is quite an amazing thought, that in all the Churches history, it hasn’t made an error.
In “An Introduction to Christianity” Pope Benedict states that:

“The enlargement of the bounds of human thinking necessary to absorb intellectually the Christian experience of God did not come of its own accord. It demanded a struggle, in which even error was fruitful; here it followed the basic law that everywhere governs the human mind in its advances.”

That is that learning requires struggle and error. Why do we fall down Bruce? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up again.

I do believe in the ex-cathedra principle of the Church, and that it has not taught error, but I do think we should view this with humility and gratitude and the awareness that it is human nature to make mistakes.
 
The ordinary non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium is subject to the possibility of occasional error and correction. However, God never permits such errors to reach the extent of leading us off of the path of salvation. Not every teaching of the Magisterium is infallible. That is why the First Vatican Council had to define set criteria for the Pope to teach infallibly: because the ordinary teaching of the Pope is not infallible.

The ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible, but this is not the same as the ordinary Magisterium itself. The ordinary and universal Magisterium occurs when a teaching has been taught under the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium for so long and so widely, by successive Popes and Bishops, that it becomes an infallible teaching.

God does not permit any infallible teachings to be in error. And God does not permit all or most ordinary teachings, nor any ordinary teachings necessary for salvation, to be in error.

Ron Conte
 
I honestly don’t know how ordinary Catholics can keep straight what is an infallable teaching of the Church (Pope, ordinary magisterium, universal magisterium, etc.). Catholic scholars debate these issues and lay Catholics are supposed to know which is which? As for the OP, if the Catholic Church claims infallability, which it does (at least in the important matters) then, yes, if you are wrong on one issue the house of cards falls by definition. This is not a problem for Protestants since we do not claim that individual Protestant denominations are always right all the time. The Universal Church, yes, but not necessarily components thereof such as the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc. Not your belief I know.
 
rr1213 said:
I honestly don’t know how ordinary Catholics can keep straight what is an infallable teaching of the Church (Pope, ordinary magisterium, universal magisterium, etc.). Catholic scholars debate these issues and lay Catholics are supposed to know which is which?
Click to expand...
The doctrinal declarations of a council, that have been ratified by the Pope, and which end in the words “let him be anathema” are infallible definitions.

They will usually be worded as: “If anyone says such and such, let him be anathema”. Or, “if anyone denies this or that, let him be anathema.”

Those are examples of infallible dogmas of the faith, and there are many of them.

There can be some disagreement over the infallibility of certain other Church teachings (such as those contained in the Syllabus of Pius IX), but not those teachings defined by councils. We can be certain that the doctrines defined at Councils are infallible.

Vatican II was different than other Church councils in that it did not define any dogmas, and as such did not engage the extraordinary (infallible) magisterium.
 
rr1213 said:
I honestly don’t know how ordinary Catholics can keep straight what is an infallable teaching of the Church (Pope, ordinary magisterium, universal magisterium, etc.). Catholic scholars debate these issues and lay Catholics are supposed to know which is which?
Click to expand...
It isn’t hard as it sounds 🙂 . In actual practice, the Faith is very simple, and the average Catholic is not impacted on any kind of a regular basis by theological conundrums of the number-of-angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin variety.

Except for those of us that like to wrestle with and argue – er, discuss – these types of things, most Catholics only need to have a good enough grasp of their Faith to lead holy lives: giving praise to God, listening to his word, and recieving his grace to avoid evil and do good. This, as Our Lord told Martha, is the better part.

If a Catholic has manifest, or even nagging, difficulties about a specific article of the Faith that isn’t crystal clear from a natural law standpoint or Scripture, he can turn to the Church’s teaching on that subject (by asking his pastor who must give account for the souls of his people, or by looking to say what the Catechism says about it, which, by and large, addresses almost every topic one might need to gain clarity on). He doesn’t have to figure it out for himself and parse out whether something is fallible, infallible, ordinary/extraordinary magisterium, yada, yada, yada. Most people are looking for pastoral guidance, not exhaustive philosophical, scientific, and theological precision.

That’s why there’s no “definitive list” of infallible dogmas – the average Catholic, practically speaking, doesn’t really need it.
 
Thanks for the explanation. So, it is only us argumentative types that get wrapped up in the issue?😃
 
rr1213 said:
Thanks for the explanation. So, it is only us argumentative types that get wrapped up in the issue?😃
Click to expand...
Yup, as well as the naturally (and one would hope, humbly) inquisitive. That’s you and me both, pal! 😃
 
Elzee said:
I recently heard a priest say during his homily *“If the Church is ever proven wrong about one of it’s doctrine then we would not be able to trust any of its doctrine.” *The examples he used were the Assumption and if Jesus had siblings).

He was speaking in support of the Church being error free in regard to faith and morals. From the rest of his homily, I think **he was trying to make the point that because the Church has the protection of the Holy Spirit and claims not to teach in error when it comes to faith and morals, if even one of it doctrine was proven false it would make the *whole ***concept and claim of not teaching error in regard to faith and morals fall apart.

Does this make sense? Can anyone take this statement and expound upon it? I think I get what he is saying but am having a hard time getting my arms around the logic.
Click to expand...
That is exactly why I’m Catholic. If the Catholic Church is wrong about one single doctrine, then how can we know that any Christian belief is true?
 
It is better not to have absolute surety about every question of faith, because then one would stop seeking truth, and as a result, one would stop seeking God.

The way of Christ is the road to Calvary, and it is a dark and rocky road. You can’t pave that road by claiming absolute surety on every question of belief and practice. You have to struggle along the difficult path.

Ron Conte
 
I became Catholic because of the authority of the Church. I stay Catholic because of the :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: Eucharist. Glory to God in the highest.
 
Jabronie said:
That is exactly why I’m Catholic. If the Catholic Church is wrong about one single doctrine, then how can we know that any Christian belief is true?
Click to expand...
I second this. If the Catholic Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of Faith and Morals, then (IMO) the Catholic Church is not different then any other. Non-Christian included.

If it were proven, for me, it would all be over. It would all truly be relative.
 
The Catholic Church cannot be wrong in its dogma. Personally though, in the light of new properly ascertained revelation that adds undertanding to the sacred deposit of faith (note: this revelation does not add to the sacred deposit of faith), then its teaching can be slightly modified and well for that matter the same goes for the doctrine. Yet then again it cannot conflict Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

So for example, if tomorrow the Pope decides that to ‘upgrade’ the doctrine of the Assumption to dogma, then it can never be wrong. Yet if tomorrow we come to know of some revelation that has worked its way to the Curia on the Assumption, then additional information may be added to the doctrine.
 
Mijoy2 said:
I second this. If the Catholic Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of Faith and Morals, then (IMO) the Catholic Church is not different then any other. Non-Christian included.

If it were proven, for me, it would all be over. It would all truly be relative.
Click to expand...
You guys would never survive as Protestants…😃
 
Elzee said:
I recently heard a priest say during his homily *“If the Church is ever proven wrong about one of it’s doctrine then we would not be able to trust any of its doctrine.” *The examples he used were the Assumption and if Jesus had siblings).
Click to expand...
The statement as read is too simplistic to be logically dependable: there is no necessary relationship between the accuracy of one judgment and the accuracy of another judgement on a separate case.

If we amended it to say, “Were the Church ever proven wrong about one of its doctrines, then we would not be justified in placing absolute trust in any of its doctrine”, it would be better.

Both of the examples mentioned are unprovable and undisprovable, as both rest upon the testimony of sources which appear after the dates of the events in question, but which cannot be demonstrated to be wrong without the aid of time-travel technology.
 
demerzel85 said:
So for example, if tomorrow the Pope decides that to ‘upgrade’ the doctrine of the Assumption to dogma, then it can never be wrong.
Click to expand...
Newsflash: that happened about 56 years ago 🙂
Yet if tomorrow we come to know of some revelation that has worked its way to the Curia on the Assumption, then additional information may be added to the doctrine.
Click to expand...
In other words, the doctrine can develop, but it can’t change.

Jeremy
 
rr1213 said:
This is not a problem for Protestants since we do not claim that individual Protestant denominations are always right all the time. The Universal Church, yes, but not necessarily components thereof such as the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc.
Click to expand...
Where is this Universal Church, and how can I join? God knows I want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Jeremy
 
demerzel85 said:
So for example, if tomorrow the Pope decides that to ‘upgrade’ the doctrine of the Assumption to dogma, then it can never be wrong. Yet if tomorrow we come to know of some revelation that has worked its way to the Curia on the Assumption, then additional information may be added to the doctrine.
Click to expand...
As has been noted:
  1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Click to expand...
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top