Infallible list of infallible teachings

[Koineman]

Look, Scripture is the word of God is a proposition regarding the Transcendent truths. So to accept that claim, one must consider X (the one making the claim) to be an authority regarding the Transcendent.

So if you accept the claim because X said so, that means you accept that X is an authority regarding the Transcendent.

No, it means only that I accept X as an authority regarding THAT particular transcendent claim. You are making a leap.

So you also have to accept the rest of the claims regarding Transcendent truths from X.

I’ve already given you a reasonable answer as to why this conclusion of yours is flawed, so at this point we’re just talking past each other. But thanks for discussing it, anyway.

 

[Filioque]

Not so fast. I disagree with your conclusion. Even if it was the Catholic Church through whom the Bible came, that does not mean it has more authority than the Bible. Since it does not have more authority than the Bible, it cannot be said to be the final authority on everything the Bible says.

An analogy from history: MG George G. Meade was delivered a message from President Abraham Lincoln just before the Battle of Gettysburg. The message appointed him to be the commander of the Union Army. Imagine the messenger who delivered that important message telling Meade, “Not only am I the deliverer of this message, but also I am the final authority to interpret it correctly, whereas you, General, are not.”

The messenger does not have more authority than–and not even the same level of authority as–the author of the message.

The problem with your argument as I see it are the suppositions that the Catholic Church elevates itself above the Scriptures, and that it is simply an errand boy.

The Scriptures along with Oral teachings of the Apostles form the Canon which the Church uses to determine what is authentic doctrine and what is not. St. Paul writes about this. The Breans don’t reject anything not written in Scripture, but rather use Scripture to see if there is agreement with the oral doctrine or an outright prohibition. The Scriptures they would use would have been the Septuagent, including the books eliminated by most Protestants. In general terms they include those books later canonized by the Catholic Church as the NT. Although at the time there were several other books that local Churches held as Scripture which were not included when the Catholic Church determined what would constitute the Bible.

When Jesus commisioned the Apostles they were far more than simple messengers, they were Vicars, a Vicar rules with the same authority that the one who they represent has. Not because of who they are, but because they have been given that authority by he who commissioned them. Scripture is clear, only God can forgive sins. Jesus lays hands on the Apostles, breathes on them and tells them who’s sins you forgive are forgiven, who’s sins you retain are retained. He gives them the authority to do what up to this point only He as God could do. So too He gives them authority not to be superior to the the Gospel, be it oral or written, but to in His name and by His authority be the keeper, dispenser and interpreter of that revelation. A revelation that has only one truth, not the multiple truths of each individual who may read it.

While the Catholic Church encorages the prayerful reading and meditation on the Sacred Scriptures for all her members, it does so in the proper context, not as a simple book of rules which is the end of the matter, but as a means God gives us to know Him better, and understand His will.

The Catholic Church also encourages us to learn the truths which it proclaims, be they from oral or written sources of revelation which it was given by Christ through the Apostles, however it does not require that we know them all, but rather learn them. So if we assent to the teaching which the Church proclaims to the world, and learn over time that some of our understanding was unclear, or we did not know something about what God has revealed through no fault of our own, we are not judged as less a Catholic, because we have ascribed to a higher authority than our own selves, that authority which Jesus established to guide us and gave His own word that He would not abandon. Our ascent to the truths that the Catholic Church teaches is more a faith in the promises of Christ Jesus, than in those humans who rule the Church, because it is He who has promised to guide them, and keep them from misguiding us when officially acting in His name.

 

[Della]

No, it means only that I accept X as an authority regarding THAT particular transcendent claim. You are making a leap.

I’ve already given you a reasonable answer as to why this conclusion of yours is flawed, so at this point we’re just talking past each other. But thanks for discussing it, anyway.

I’d like to try to simplify this a bit, if I may. What Eufrosnia means, if I may speak for him/her, is that since it is the Church that declared the Bible the word of God, we accept that it is, with or without interior “proof” that it is. Why is this? Because Jesus established his Church and the Church gave us the Bible. Along with this, the Church does not think of, and never has thought of, the Bible as a prooftext. Rather, it considers the Bible the WITNESS to the truths God gave to men–first to Adam, then Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Prophets and finally, in God’s final revelation to man, in Jesus Christ. Christ is God’s Word made man–God’s word to us.

The Bible is God’s written word inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Bible is not and cannot be a final authority. Why? Because authority lies in persons not in documents. Every document needs a reliable interpreter no matter what kind it is. The idea that documents are authorities, in and of themselves, came about when laws were exalted above kings, but in truth, our King has appointed an authority to speak for him in his Church. Evidence and the witness of this is clearly marked out in the whole of the Bible.

Take the US Constitution as an example. Certainly anyone can read it and believe he understands what it means and what those who composed it wanted to convey, but we have a Supreme Court that interprets it because it cannot speak for itself. It is the same with the Bible. It needs an authortative interpreter, and that interpreter is Christ’s Church which he founded on Peter and the Apostles.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Another trap that Protestants fall into is thinking that Catholicism is a human creation, like their own churches. Because of that, as with their own churches, they require proofs to see whether it measures up to their own private judgement of the matter under discussion.

What Eufrosnia is trying so hard to explain to Koineman, is that THE FIRST PRINCIPLE of your belief system comes rationally.

It is the FIRST PRINCIPLE, which varies from one person to another, which makes the logic of one so opaque to another.

The FIRST PRINCIPLE of a thoughtful man, should be (according to my First Principles) that God has left us His Revelation with some RELIGION, not some book. (and I can explain my reasons why I think this)

The First PRINCIPLE of a Protestant is that God has left His Revelation in a book, rather like the Mormons. (What reasons do the Protestant offer about their book? Are they circular? “because the book says so”)

I know that sounds insulting to Protestants, but it IS true. That brings us back to Eufrosnia’s point. By what REASON is this Book considered Revelation? Why not the Koran? Is it because they are just familiar with the Bible, and its history and association with first God’s chosen people, and then God’s Church? The Protestant is uncomfortable delving too deeply into this matter as one might expect. Why? Because the reasons keep referring them back to a Religion rather than a book. A people, not a book. A living breathing authority, not a book.

As St. Augustine once famously said, if it weren’t for the Church, I would never have believed the Bible.

 

[pablope]

Not so fast. I disagree with your conclusion. Even if it was the Catholic Church through whom the Bible came, that does not mean it has more authority than the Bible. Since it does not have more authority than the Bible, it cannot be said to be the final authority on everything the Bible says.

.

Then who do you say is the final authority on everything the Bible says?

Your flaw is to assume that if a body is authoritative in one decision, it must therefore be authoritative in all subsequent decisions.

If it is not the Church, then who should be authoritative in all decisions? Should there be many or should there be only one?

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, it means only that I accept X as an authority regarding THAT particular transcendent claim. You are making a leap.

What? There is no such thing as “Church is an authority only regarding that particular claim”.** If so, that itself is a TRANSCENDENT CLAIM**. You would be unreasonable to believe such a claim in the first place as well.

I’ve already given you a reasonable answer as to why this conclusion of yours is flawed, so at this point we’re just talking past each other. But thanks for discussing it, anyway.

No we are not talking past each other. You are just oblivious to the fact that you are assenting and making Transcendent claims like the above without any reason. So far you have made the following Transcendent claims

1. Scripture is the Word of God
2. Church only has the authority to declare the particular Transcendent truth that “Scripture is the Word of God”

Both of the above are Transcendent truths themselves. Hence not worthy of assent without reason. So you are holding on to an illogical position. Why in your right mind would hold on so stubbornly to a position that lacks any reasonable grounds?

You might as well add a proposition like “The world is filled with invisible pink ponies who do the work of God” and there is nothing no one will be able to do disprove it to you. Bottom line here is that you have assented arbitrarily to a Transcendent claim (or as it is becoming more clearer, to a set of claims). That is UNREASONABLE.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I have to wonder, then: Why bother making infallible statements at all? If all Catholic teachings are binding, and, as others have said, it shouldn’t matter at all to the average person in the pew, why make them?

Well, maybe that’s why it is so rare. The Church declares a teaching (which has always been taught) as infallible for pastoral reasons, but apparently there are not many situations where the Church thinks that’s a good idea because it doesn’t happen very often. JP2 made his reasons pretty clear for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but usually the Church does not say why it makes such declarations.

Interesting. So there is disagreement among Catholics about a very important issue.

I would not call it a disagreement. Some Catholics are mistaken about some things. Any Catholic who says that we can disregard any teaching of the Catechism is simply mistaken.

 

[Ignatius]

Has the Roman Catholic Church ever produced an infallible list of its infallible teachings?

You clearly have a misunderstanding as to what infallibility is. That is pretty much a nonsense statement, shows a lack of understanding as to both the definition of the ter infallible and the theological meaning of infallibility. They are not the same, so you might want to start by understanding the terms both as a term of the English language and as a theological concept. After you’ve done that, you will probably want to rephrase the question.

I hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding.

 

[Koineman]

Well, maybe that’s why it is so rare. The Church declares a teaching (which has always been taught) as infallible for pastoral reasons, but apparently there are not many situations where the Church thinks that’s a good idea because it doesn’t happen very often. JP2 made his reasons pretty clear for Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but usually the Church does not say why it makes such declarations.

Thanks for your response, David, but that leaves me still wondering why infallible statements are made at all. Saying it’s for pastoral reasons doesn’t help much, since even teachings that are not considered infallible would surely fall into the same category.

I would not call it a disagreement. Some Catholics are mistaken about some things. Any Catholic who says that we can disregard any teaching of the Catechism is simply mistaken.

Isn’t it reasonable for me to say, then, that when Protestants disagree about the Bible, it’s not that the Bible is insufficient, but rather simply that some Protestants “are mistaken about some things”?

 

[Koineman]

The problem with your argument as I see it are the suppositions that the Catholic Church elevates itself above the Scriptures, and that it is simply an errand boy.

These are not suppositions; they are what others have been saying, unless I have been totally misunderstanding them, though I don’t think so. As for the first “supposition,” it has been said here and elsewhere that Catholics are required to assent to what the RCC teaches because it is an authority. The implication—unless I have misunderstood—is that Catholics are to assent to what the RCC teaches unconditionally. That indicates that the RCC is seen as an authority higher than Scripture. As for the second “supposition,” some have made the argument that the RCC has delivered the Bible to us, and if it weren’t for the RCC, we would have no Bible. IOW, the Bible came through the RCC, just as the messenger’s letter came to Meade just before the Battle of Gettysburg.

Again, perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but that is what I have heard from Catholic apologists countless times.

The Scriptures along with Oral teachings of the Apostles form the Canon which the Church uses to determine what is authentic doctrine and what is not. St. Paul writes about this. The Breans don’t reject anything not written in Scripture, but rather use Scripture to see if there is agreement with the oral doctrine or an outright prohibition.

Correct, and that is what I have done with the RCC.

When Jesus commisioned the Apostles they were far more than simple messengers, they were Vicars, a Vicar rules with the same authority that the one who they represent has. Not because of who they are, but because they have been given that authority by he who commissioned them.

That, however, does not mean that their “commission” could not be taken away because of unfaithfulness or heresy. Heretical church leaders were predicted by Paul:

“From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them, … ‘28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.’ ” (Acts 20:17–18a, 28–30, NASB)

Based on Rev. 2:5, it’s possible for the Lord to take away the authority of a church that refuses to repent of its errors.

Scripture is clear, only God can forgive sins. Jesus lays hands on the Apostles, breathes on them and tells them who’s sins you forgive are forgiven, who’s sins you retain are retained. He gives them the authority to do what up to this point only He as God could do. So too He gives them authority not to be superior to the the Gospel, be it oral or written, but to in His name and by His authority be the keeper, dispenser and interpreter of that revelation. A revelation that has only one truth, not the multiple truths of each individual who may read it.

And this is why I have brought up biblical passages that help me test whether the RCC has, in fact, been the “keeper, dispenser and interpreter of that revelation.”

 

[DavidFilmer]

Thanks for your response, David, but that leaves me still wondering why infallible statements are made at all. Saying it’s for pastoral reasons doesn’t help much, since even teachings that are not considered infallible would surely fall into the same category.

By my count (as I expressed in my first reply), it has happened only once. And JP2 made his “pastoral reasons” clear. Do you have another example of a Doctrine that has been defined by a Pope or Ecumenical Council as “infallible” (actually using the word “infallible” or any language as patently apparent) whose motive has not been as clearly explained?

The Church has no obligation to the Faithful to explain Her actions. But She does. You demand an explanation. I have cited the only Doctrine that (I know of) that the Magisterium of the Church has ever defined as infallible (using this term), which is clearly explained.

Isn’t it reasonable for me to say, then, that when Protestants disagree about the Bible, it’s not that the Bible is insufficient, but rather simply that some Protestants “are mistaken about some things”?

Oh, yes. That is perfectly reasonable. The difference is that protestants have no authority apart from their own individual interpretation of Scripture. Catholics have an absolute authority to which they are bound to adhere. When protestants disagree (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, etc, etc, etc) there is no absolute authority to determine who is wrong and who is right.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Koineman:

And this is why I have brought up biblical passages that help me test whether the RCC has, in fact, been the “keeper, dispenser and interpreter of that revelation.”

Actually, that was one of the original purposes of the Gospels and Epistles, to prove to Christians where there doctrines originated (the Gospels), or more explicit instructions on those doctrines (the Epistles.)

But the problem with your approach is that you are using private judgement to arrive at your interpretation of the Scriptures.

As I said earlier, it is your first principle, that the Scriptures are the only source of Divine Revelation. That is the Protestant position, and will always cause doubt and dissension.

The Religion is what you should be evaluating. Which Christianity is the true one? All of the Protestant versions can be eliminated because they were absent for the first 1500 years. So that leaves the Orthodox and Catholic versions. Both of those Churches are Apostolic. Your decision should be between Orthodox and Catholic Christianity. I am assuming you are a Christian.

 

[Filioque]

These are not suppositions; they are what others have been saying, unless I have been totally misunderstanding them, though I don’t think so.

I do think you are misunderstanding the Catholic position. That the teaching authority Catholic Church has the authority to determine (guided by the Holy Ghost, and guarenteed by Jesus who told the Apostles as a college of authorized representitives of Jesus, as opposed to the subjective interpretation of an Inspired book by individuals, who history has shown leads to doctinal chaos. Does not make them superior to the Scriptures. The bishops of the Church and in Council, and the Popes in History with the bishops in communion with the Pope, have not claimed nor have they supposed to trump the Scriptures, only to have the authority given them by Jesus to interpret the meaning when questions and disputes have arisen. The Church in fact is so conservative in it’s approach that most definitions have only occured to settle disputes, never to create new doctrines, as most Protestants have been told.

“From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them, … ‘28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.’ ” (Acts 20:17–18a, 28–30, NASB)

Based on Rev. 2:5, it’s possible for the Lord to take away the authority of a church that refuses to repent of its errors.

I think again you are putting your own spin on this. Here St. Paul is asserting the authority and the duty of the leaders of the Church, those St. Paul has laid hands on and put in charge of the Church in Epesus to condemn those individuals and doctrines who diverge from the teachings of the Church. Christ promised to remain with the Church He founded, not to create new Churches when His work, (the Church) failed time and time again, only to have new groups form one after the other because someone denied what had been held by his fathers in faith, or interpreted something differently than was handed down to them.

And this is why I have brought up biblical passages that help me test whether the RCC has, in fact, been the “keeper, dispenser and interpreter of that revelation.”

I really get the feeling that you’ve not done so, even though you think you’ve done so. I think you’ve taken the writings and talks of others who distort Catholic teaching, and re-presented arguments formulated by them which while sincere, are based on a misrepresentation of history and Catholic teachings. For myself my introduction to and the initial reason for my investigation into Catholic teachings was the teachers you seem to have read, which rather than taking on face value, I investigated from Catholic sources, and found to be distorted by those who opposed what they claimed to be Catholic teachings, or distortions of the writings of Catholic Apologists. Boettener, and White being the chief among those who distort Catholic teachings so far out of context that it is almost comedic.

 

[guanophore]

So one knows what teachings are infallible simply by faith? Or have I misunderstood you?

There are many ways that God has given mankind to know the Truth, but yes, it boils down to whether one believes that we have what Jesus did and taught accurately, ,or not.

That’s odd. I’ve been told by Catholics, when I’ve quoted the Catechism at times, that it’s not an infallible document. So you’re saying that the CCC is in fact infallible from cover to cover?

It is a misuse of the concept. No document can be infallible, including the Holy Scriptures, since to be infallible, there must be prevention from error. Since writings cannot “act”, then they cannot be fallible. Writings have no will, ability to take responsibility, or disernment. This is why it was a mistake for the Reformers to try to make the Scriptures the final authority. They cannot wield authority, because authority is an act of persons, not writings, however Holy.

It is the teaching itself that is infallible, that is what Jesus committed to the Church.

  Several reasons:

1.) If something is fallible, that means it’s open to question because it is subject to error. But how can something be binding on the conscience if it is fallible? Because of this, I would think it’s absolutely vital to know what teachings are infallible and which are not.

Right!

 2.) In the past, sometimes when I've quoted the CCC or some other fallible document to Catholics, I've gotten the reply, "Well, remember, that's not infallible" or words to that effect, as if my bringing it up was totally negated.

A poor apologetic, I would say.

3.) If a church claims to have the power/authority to make infallible statements, then why wouldn’t it produce an infallible list of those infallible statements? That would ensure that nobody confuses something that is binding with what is not binding (see point 1).

It is not possible to reduce a lifestyle to a “list”. The Apostles gave the Teachings of Jesus to the Church as a way of life. It includes a world view, and discipleship that cannot be contained in a “list”. This is like saying, “Why didn’t jesus just give us a list of what we needed?”

Instead He founded a Church, and gave that Church the authority to keep and teach His Word.

 

[guanophore]

Why do you want to know (or why should a Catholic want to know)? That’s not a combative question, but a serious one. Is it to find which teachings one can plausibly dissent against?

I’m also curious about something else. As a Protestant, how would you respond if I asked you for a list of all the teachings in the bible?

Or how about an infallible list of the books that should be in the Bible? Why is the Letter of Barnabas and the Didache not in the Bible?

 

[Philthy]

Koineman:

If something is fallible, that means it’s open to question because it is subject to error. But how can something be binding on the conscience if it is fallible? Because of this, I would think it’s absolutely vital to know what teachings are infallible and which are not.

I can appreciate your reasoning in arriving at these questions/conclusions, but I believe you are overlooking something fairly fundamental. When you posit that “Ifsomething is fallible, that means it’s open to question…” I can’t help but wonder, “ open to question” by whom? Me? You? There is a hierarchy of authority in such issues. I’m not in a position of authority – because God has not given me that authority - to decide independently whether a teaching is in error. I have a responsibility to “be subject to the presbyters” (1 Pet 5:5). Now don’t get me wrong – I feel the desire to “make my own rules” at times, but I recognize it for what it is…pride. Apart from a clear directive or personal revelation from God I have a moral obligation to “do as they say”. The same moral obligation exists for a child to obey his parents. That obligation supersedes their correctness in believing - or simply doubting – that something they have proposed as law.
If you and I were alive 1980 years ago, we would be under the authority of the apostles, or one chosen by them to lead a local church. Even if what they proposed turned out to be fallible we would still have an obligation to obey them.
That is why all teachings from those granted authority are morally obligatory to me – and you – and why the question of their infallibility is usually irrelevant. Again, it’s usually irrelevant because the only thing which would release one from this obligation would be the dictate of conscience or a direct revelation from God. Short of that we are to obey those whom God has placed in positions of leadership.

“If a church claims to have the power/authority to make infallible statements, then why wouldn’t it produce an infallible list of those infallible statements? That would ensure that nobody confuses something that is binding with what is not binding (see point 1). “

Yes, see point one. The infallibility of the statement is not the source of its obligatory nature, the hierarchy of authority is. Again, apart from a direct revelation by God or a clear dictate of conscience we are obligated to obey those whom God has placed in positions of authority over us.

Koineman:

Why issue an statement if it’s infallibility cannot be known?

So everyone can know to obey it! I hope this is starting to make sense…
It’s because it’s infallibility does not need to be known in order for one to be bound to obey it.

“Since the Catholic Church itself agrees that the Bible is inspired and thus authoritative”… “I said that it (ie, the bible) was my ultimate authority.”

Authoritative? I’m not sure I know what you mean by that. Authoritative is not quite the same as having authority. The bible can be “authoritative” but does not have the ability to exercise authority. For example, Scripture says that in reference to the bread at the last supper Christ said, “This is my body”. What did he mean by that? Can the bible tell us “authoritatively” what was meant by that? Can it exercise authority in telling us all of what was meant by that statement? No it can not. It cannot exercise authority. And with that realization it’s time to “turn the tables” a bit and ask you the question you asked regarding infalliblity: If Scripture can’t tells us authoritatively what was meant by those words, what is the point of it being recorded at all? You asked this same question in regards to infallible statements – why issue them if their infallibility cannot be known? It turns out that the same issue exists in the interpretation of Scripture. If you cannot know what Christ meant by those words, why did the HS inspire them to be recorded? The answer is the same as we discussed above. The Apostles had the authority to say what was meant by that statement and those subject to their authority were bound to believe what they taught.
Christ still has those in positions of authority to dictate the truths of the faith and you and I are obliged to submit to them…

 

[Philthy]

The implication—unless I have misunderstood—is that Catholics are to assent to what the RCC teaches unconditionally. That indicates that the RCC is seen as an authority higher than Scripture.

Uhhh, sorry but you have made an invalid conclusion. There is no indication that “the RCC is seen as an authority higher than Scripture.”, it is, rather, an authority higher than one’s PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF Scripture. And that is a very different concept than claiming the RCC to be “higher than Scripture”.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for your response, David, but that leaves me still wondering why infallible statements are made at all.

Because as the Church grows, and society grows, new issues emerge that did not exist in the time of Christ. It is the duty of the Church to teach the faithful how the infallible, once for all deposit of faith is applied to the present day.

There are also heresies that emerged after the Apostles that required a response from the Church to prevent the faithful from falling into error. You can read about these by looking up Gnosticism, Arianism, and Nestorianism. The gift if inallibility that Jesus gave to the Church gives us confidence that the statements made by the councils in response to these heresies are from God.

Saying it’s for pastoral reasons doesn’t help much, since even teachings that are not considered infallible would surely fall into the same category.

No, there are plenty of statements made by the successors of the Apostles that are not only not good pastoral practice, but contradict the teachings of the Church. The gift of infallibility is for the Church, and only protects individuals to the extent that they remain within the teachings of the Church. It does not make the members of the Magesterium impeccable.

Isn’t it reasonable for me to say, then, that when Protestants disagree about the Bible, it’s not that the Bible is insufficient, but rather simply that some Protestants “are mistaken about some things”?

 

[Koineman]

Uhhh, sorry but you have made an invalid conclusion. There is no indication that “the RCC is seen as an authority higher than Scripture.”, it is, rather, an authority higher than one’s PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF Scripture. And that is a very different concept than claiming the RCC to be “higher than Scripture”.

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point. If one must assent unconditionally, that means necessarily that one must assent without question, without testing the authority using what has been inspired by God. That puts what has been inspired on a lower level than the RCC.

 

[Koineman]

Because as the Church grows, and society grows, new issues emerge that did not exist in the time of Christ. It is the duty of the Church to teach the faithful how the infallible, once for all deposit of faith is applied to the present day.

Yes, but this doesn’t answer the question. That teaching could be done without any infallible statements, since Catholics are expected to assent to all teachings of the RCC. As others have pointed out, it makes no difference to the average man in the pew whether a teaching is infallible or not, since Catholics are expected to assent regardless.

There are also heresies that emerged after the Apostles that required a response from the Church to prevent the faithful from falling into error. You can read about these by looking up Gnosticism, Arianism, and Nestorianism.

Thank you; I already know about them. Again, my question remains: Why make any infallible response to heresies since all church declarations are to be believed without question?

The gift if inallibility that Jesus gave to the Church gives us confidence that the statements made by the councils in response to these heresies are from God.

Same problem as stated above.