Infallible list of infallible teachings

[AmbroseSJ]

I haven’t failed because i haven’t tried, because that is not what this thread is about. The point in this latest development is that the treasured Catholic argument that multiple interpretations = inability to identify the correct interpretation is fallacious.

And Catholics are in no position to criticize Protestants for multiple conflicting interpretations, because they disagree on things as well. Until the Catholic Church is 100% free of all disagreement and varying interpretations, then, and only then, will you have the right to criticize Protestants for their disagreements. Until then, it’s the pot calling the kettle black and, therefore, unworthy of a response.

No there’s a big difference. You are saying you don’t need the church because you have the Bible. But when that substitution is shown to be empty and meaningless, you say that since the Church isn’t perfect, you have no need to defend your position.

BTW, your supposed Catholic disagreements are petty and non-doctrinal. You equate things like Catholics don’t agree on the number of infallible teachings (a non-teaching) with contradictory interpretations of the Bible (doctrinal teachings)

Even if you go further and say Catholics disagree about what is infallible and what isn’t, it is still non-doctrinal, since Catholics don’t have a list of infallible teachings. Whether the teaching is infallible or not is moot. It is a Church teaching and so should be given our assent.

 

[Tomster]

Since dogmatic definitions of an ecumenical council are infallible, they are irreformable, but its disciplinary measures are subject to modification by one superior to the council itself, i.e. the Roman Pontiff.

Now, how many infallible teachings are there in the Berean sect you belong to? :compcoff:

Pony up! What de fide teachings are you proposing from your side of the aisle.

 

[Tomster]

No there’s a big difference. You are saying you don’t need the church because you have the Bible. But when that substitution is shown to be empty and meaningless, you say that since the Church isn’t perfect, you have no need to defend your position.

BTW, your supposed Catholic disagreements are petty and non-doctrinal. You equate things like Catholics don’t agree on the number of infallible teachings (a non-teaching) with contradictory interpretations of the Bible (doctrinal teachings)

Even if you go further and say Catholics disagree about what is infallible and what isn’t, it is still non-doctrinal, since Catholics don’t have a list of infallible teachings. Whether the teaching is infallible or not is moot. It is a Church teaching and so should be given our assent.

Thank you very much!

 

[Filioque]

And Catholics are in no position to criticize Protestants for multiple conflicting interpretations, because they disagree on things as well. Until the Catholic Church is 100% free of all disagreement and varying interpretations, then, and only then, will you have the right to criticize Protestants for their disagreements. Until then, it’s the pot calling the kettle black and, therefore, unworthy of a response.

If Catholics were Protestants you could use the argument above, however one cannot teach another Gospel, and be teaching what the Catholic Church teaches. Even if one is grossly uninformed or misinformed regarding the Catholic Faith, and advises you that the Church teaches something it does not, you are still not teaching the Catholic Faith.

An example of this in the past 50 years are Catholics who claim that they do not have to abstain from Artificial Contraception. They claim that Humane Vitae does not apply to them because they were taught by Fr. So and So, or Sr. Whatcha that as Catholics their conciense is the supreme arbitrator of their lives, so if they don’t believe it is sinful they are O.K. Well while depending on what they were taught they may be less culpible of the sin, they were taught in error, because the Church does not simply require that we follow our conciense, but that we also form it according to Catholic dogmatic and moral teachings.

Similarly there are Catholics who believe that any use of the Birth Control pill is excluded from the Church. Again not what the Church teaches. What we today call “the Pill” was originally developed by a Catholic to help regulate the cycle of women who had a disorder causing grave pain and highly irregular periods, a real medical problem and to help them manage their health. If used for this purpose and not to artifically prevent pregnancy, it is legitimate.

I’ve already explained this. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says that Scripture makes the man of God thoroughly equipped for every good work, and complete. If something by itself makes you fully equipped and complete, there is no need for anything else. That is sufficiency…

It does indeed say those things that the Catholic believes, but like Martin Luther you have added something that is not there. Luther added, Alone to Faith, you add the sole sufficiency to the verse to make it say what you would like it to say. Hmmm was there not something about adding and taking away from the Scripture?

While in the proper perspective, the Scriptures are useful in defining dogma and morals, ie if the Church said, we now proclaim that it is good that you should murder, One could use the Scriptures along with the constant teaching of the Church to determine that someone, even of the highest authority was not teaching in accordance to Catholic teaching is not teaching the Catholic faith and stand up to that. One cannot add something that is clearly not there, just because we believe it should be.

Again not an either or, but an and, since Jesus did not write a word of the Bible, but gave us the Church to rule, teach and guide us, AND through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost gave us the Bible as one of the sources to teach and guide us. The Bible as God’s infallible word is true, but nowhere without adding to the text does it even claim to be the only source of the truth, to the contrary it tells us to be obedient to the Leaders of the Church. It does encorage us to learn, to become wise, and to grow in faith and knowledge, but it does not tell us to just second guess everything on our own.

 

[Tomster]

You have either misunderstood my point in bringing up the example of the Bereans or have not read what I was responding to. My point in mentioning the Bereans was that the idea of testing the teaching of another using Scripture is validated in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the extent of that Scripture.

You really have to ignore the plain meaning of the text to come to that conclusion. Let’s look at it:

“Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.”

What you’ve done is reversed the meaning. It doesn’t say that they used the apostolic preaching to interpret anything. Nothing even hinting that is mentioned. What it does say, however, is that they used the Scriptures to see if what was orally spoken was true.

This is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier about multiple interpretations not proving that a text is insufficient. Here we have the meaning of the text as plain as day, and yet, nevertheless, its meaning is twisted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended.

What Scriptures did they search? And what were their findings? Did the Bereans make some sort of infallible determination that the Church accepted as de fide? The Bereans were Jews who were just coming into the Church. They had absolutely no idea of the fullness of truth that Jesus proclaimed, orally, to His disciples. In this particular case it was up to St. Paul and his hierarchically appointed pastors to preach and explain, infallibly, what the Bereans were searching for in the Old Testament.

I must say, in all charity, your epistemology, is very weak.

 

[Tomster]

If Catholics were Protestants you could use the argument above, however one cannot teach another Gospel, and be teaching what the Catholic Church teaches. Even if one is grossly uninformed or misinformed regarding the Catholic Faith, and advises you that the Church teaches something it does not, you are still not teaching the Catholic Faith.

An example of this in the past 50 years are Catholics who claim that they do not have to abstain from Artificial Contraception. They claim that Humane Vitae does not apply to them because they were taught by Fr. So and So, or Sr. Whatcha that as Catholics their conciense is the supreme arbitrator of their lives, so if they don’t believe it is sinful they are O.K. Well while depending on what they were taught they may be less culpible of the sin, they were taught in error, because the Church does not simply require that we follow our conciense, but that we also form it according to Catholic dogmatic and moral teachings.

Similarly there are Catholics who believe that any use of the Birth Control pill is excluded from the Church. Again not what the Church teaches. What we today call “the Pill” was originally developed by a Catholic to help regulate the cycle of women who had a disorder causing grave pain and highly irregular periods, a real medical problem and to help them manage their health. If used for this purpose and not to artifically prevent pregnancy, it is legitimate.

It does indeed say those things that the Catholic believes, but like Martin Luther you have added something that is not there. Luther added, Alone to Faith, you add the sole sufficiency to the verse to make it say what you would like it to say. Hmmm was there not something about adding and taking away from the Scripture?

While in the proper perspective, the Scriptures are useful in defining dogma and morals, ie if the Church said, we now proclaim that it is good that you should murder, One could use the Scriptures along with the constant teaching of the Church to determine that someone, even of the highest authority was not teaching in accordance to Catholic teaching is not teaching the Catholic faith and stand up to that. One cannot add something that is clearly not there, just because we believe it should be.

Again not an either or, but an and, since Jesus did not write a word of the Bible, but gave us the Church to rule, teach and guide us, AND through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost gave us the Bible as one of the sources to teach and guide us. The Bible as God’s infallible word is true, but nowhere without adding to the text does it even claim to be the only source of the truth, to the contrary it tells us to be obedient to the Leaders of the Church. It does encorage us to learn, to become wise, and to grow in faith and knowledge, but it does not tell us to just second guess everything on our own.

Koineman,

Ah yes, “The Church, the pillar and bullwark of truth.”

Additionally, while the Old Testament was ready at hand to the nascent Church, in the Septuagint collection, the new Scriptures had yet to make their appearance, for Christ Himself had left behind no written page. As most of the ancient hagiographers had been Prophets, so the writers of the New Testament were either Apostles or their immediate disciples.

The Apostles wrote when particular or personal conditions caused them to do so. Only a few of their works were from the outset intended for general use, such as the Epistles to the Colossians and Galatians, and the 1st Epistle of Peter. In the churches where the apostolic writings had been composed (St. Mark’s gospel in Rome), or to which they were addressed, and whether they had been brought by trustworthy messengers, it was the custom to read them at public worship, the breaking of the bread, The Mass. If then one or another Christian church expressed a desire to possess some particular book of aostolic authorship, a copy was made and dispatched. No work was accepted as apostolic unless it had evidence for its authenticity from the church where it had been written, or to which it was addressed. If no such evidence were forthcoming, the book was not considered apostolic, even though it professed to be written by an Apostle.

Therefore not every Christian congregation can originally have possessed every written book by the Apostles. The multiplication and diffusion of the apostolic writings was hindered by well grounded suspicions of their authenticity, by the poverty of the majority of Christians, by the difficulties of traveling , as well as by the danger of persecution. The collections of books must have varied at first, and must have remained so for a longer or shorter time, according to circumstances.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I haven’t failed because i haven’t tried, because that is not what this thread is about. The point in this latest development is that the treasured Catholic argument that multiple interpretations = inability to identify the correct interpretation is fallacious.

And Catholics are in no position to criticize Protestants for multiple conflicting interpretations, because they disagree on things as well. Until the Catholic Church is 100% free of all disagreement and varying interpretations, then, and only then, will you have the right to criticize Protestants for their disagreements. Until then, it’s the pot calling the kettle black and, therefore, unworthy of a response.

Perhaps you don’t understand the critical issue Koineman. Your logic behind all discussions on this thread and elsewhere is that the Catholic Church is wrong. You say that you know this is true without doubt because it teaches things that are inconsistent with the Bible.

But you keep forgetting that when you say the Church is inconsistent with the Bible, what you are really saying is that it is inconsistent with this particular interpretation that I was taught/“figured out” of the Bible.

So yes, you do need to give us reason to think that your particular interpretation regarding Transcendent truths from the Biblical evidence is indeed what we must all follow. Notice that this is different from saying one should follow a conclusion regarding a historical or empirical fact. These conclusions can be studied, compared against our own experience and we can see if the conclusion makes sense. But we cannot do so with Transcendent claims.

Now the ball is in your court (as it has been for awhile). Do you have any defense of what you are saying?

 

[Koineman]

No there’s a big difference. You are saying you don’t need the church

Nope, that’s not what I’ve argued for. Try not to read into what I write. I never said I don’t need the church.

because you have the Bible. But when that substitution is shown to be empty and meaningless

It hasn’t been shown to be empty and meaningless. Scriptures that I bring up, however, are being ignored and twisted. And that makes me conclude that this discussion is entirely unprofitable.

BTW, your supposed Catholic disagreements are petty and non-doctrinal.

No, they apply completely to this discussion. You’re just splitting hairs to try to put the RCC above the problem of having conflicting interpretations. I’m not buying it.

You equate things like Catholics don’t agree on the number of infallible teachings (a non-teaching) with contradictory interpretations of the Bible (doctrinal teachings)

I didn’t equate them. That’s you again subtly changing what I wrote. The issue of how many infallible teachings there are, and which they are, and whether Catholics agree on those two questions, is extremely fitting for this thread and a perfectly reasonable question. Not only that, but it’s extremely important–unless you want to say that the RCC’s infallible teachings are not important.

So far, though, nobody has answered it. I find that to be very revealing.

 

[Koineman]

Since dogmatic definitions of an ecumenical council are infallible, they are irreformable, but its disciplinary measures are subject to modification by one superior to the council itself, i.e. the Roman Pontiff.

You didn’t answer the question. I thought it was pretty clear:

Which RCC teachings are infallible, and how many are there?

From the evasion that’s going on in this thread, I can only conclude that you guys don’t know for sure how many infallible teachings there are and which ones they are.

Thanks for discussing it. You have revealed more to me than you may realize.

 

[Filioque]

You didn’t answer the question. I thought it was pretty clear:

Which RCC teachings are infallible, and how many are there?

From the evasion that’s going on in this thread, I can only conclude that you guys don’t know for sure how many infallible teachings there are and which ones they are.

Thanks for discussing it. You have revealed more to me than you may realize.

That a list of all the teachings of the church which must be held to be a Catholic, vs another issue, how many dogmatic or moral teachings have been officially pronounced are not a anyone’s fingertips is far less important to me than if the Church has the authority, along with the Bible to make statements which we as people who profess Christ Jesus are bound to. To discount the entire body of teachings because individuals on a board may know if even more revealing.

The Bible also bids us not to make a false wittness. If you suppose that you can deny the authority of the Catholic Church, or prove it false because individuals without the teaching authority of the Church could not follow you down the rabbit hole, then you’ve not only not proven a point, but are ommitting another one of God’s instructions.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You didn’t answer the question. I thought it was pretty clear:

Which RCC teachings are infallible, and how many are there?

From the evasion that’s going on in this thread, I can only conclude that you guys don’t know for sure how many infallible teachings there are and which ones they are.

Thanks for discussing it. You have revealed more to me than you may realize.

I don’t know if you have been missing what is been said. ALL TEACHINGS of the Church regarding faith and morals are infallible. Church law is not infallible but still requires assent of the will. Did you read the link I provided at the beginning of this thread?

 

[Eufrosnia]

I didn’t equate them. That’s you again subtly changing what I wrote. The issue of how many infallible teachings there are, and which they are, and whether Catholics agree on those two questions, is extremely fitting for this thread and a perfectly reasonable question. Not only that, but it’s extremely important–unless you want to say that the RCC’s infallible teachings are not important.

So far, though, nobody has answered it. I find that to be very revealing.

The fact that it has been answered many times on this thread, even by myself, makes it seem like you have a serious bias against any answer that makes you uncomfortable. You sound like you already have an answer in mind and want us to say something to agree with you.

I am not sure how clearly I can say it more than this. ALL CHURCH TEACHINGS ON FAITH AND MORALS ARE INFALLIBLE. ITS LAWS, WHILE NOT INFALLIBLE, REQUIRE ASSENT OF THE WILL.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

You didn’t answer the question. I thought it was pretty clear:

Which RCC teachings are infallible, and how many are there?

From the evasion that’s going on in this thread, I can only conclude that you guys don’t know for sure how many infallible teachings there are and which ones they are.

Thanks for discussing it. You have revealed more to me than you may realize.

I am confused on what you are asking. Are you asking for a specific number, as in we go back to the Council of Jerusalem, and from there, count every statement made at an ecumenical council? That seems ridiculous to me, but if you wish to do so, you can go right ahead. You can find most of the ecumenical councils online. Though what you are attempting to do is to turn our living, breathing magisterium into a list or number, which, again, seems ridiculous to me.

Irenaeus said that the Church existed for just this purpose: that if some dispute should arise, the Church would come to a conclusion. You, by adhering to some doctrines (such as the Trinity), and not others (such as apostolic succession), have become your own pope. This, again, is ridiculous.

What you and every Protestant posits is essentially that you believe as you believe because you believe it. You have no rhyme or reason to your theology. You have literally decided that God withdrew His Spirit from man (arbitrarily, I might add), and left man only with a book that cannot speak or clarify itself. How He left us with the book, or with doctrines you accept (Trinity, divinity of Christ, dual nature of Christ, inerrancy of Scripture), has become irrelevant and is chalked up to some kind of confused divine will, as though God could let us know these things through councils, but stopped at some point or wasn’t able to continue doing so.

To the subject of this thread, if you’d like an authoritative summary of Church teaching, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you want a number of teachings within it, count them yourself.

I will leave you with two questions:

First, if people today had not been TOLD that Scripture is the Word of God (you know, by words coming out of someone’s mouth, or by someone writing about Scripture), how would they know that the Protestant Canon is the true Word of God? Or do Bibles in bookstores cry out to passersby? I should like to know if they do, because mine has been silent thus far, and I would love a Bible that can explain to me what it means all of the time.

Second, is there a list of dogmatic or binding Protestant teachings? You know, of the true invisible church? For instance:

is God really a Trinity, or did He just appear in different modes? Was Jesus created by the Father? Does baptism save, or is it even required at all? Do we or do we not have free will? Can one lose their salvation based on their actions or later rejecting God? Which of the Old Testament laws are still in effect, and how is this determined? Did Jesus really multiply the loaves, or was it just a fable about sharing? Is Jesus God, an angel, or simply some kind of spirit? Is the Eucharist consubstantiated, a spiritual presence, or just symbolic? Is homosexuality wrong? Are women supposed to maintain absolute silence in church? Is the weekly celebration supposed to happen on Sabbath or the Lord’s Day? Were presbyters and bishops important or irrelevant during and after the apostles?

I have been wondering these things, and surely the Lord will have imparted such wisdom through the only thing He left us, Scripture, to find the solution. So surely Protestants must have a unified belief on these subjects. Where can I find this list of beliefs?

 

[Koineman]

Perhaps you don’t understand the critical issue Koineman. Your logic behind all discussions on this thread and elsewhere is that the Catholic Church is wrong. You say that you know this is true without doubt because it teaches things that are inconsistent with the Bible.

But you keep forgetting that when you say the Church is inconsistent with the Bible, what you are really saying is that it is inconsistent with this particular interpretation that I was taught/“figured out” of the Bible.

Of course. You can’t read a text without interpreting it. That should not seem strange. You can’t even read a historical text, which you obviously had to do in coming up with your “natural reason” argument, without interpreting it. The trouble with you, Eufrosnia, and probably every other Catholic who has responded in this thread, is that you are laboring under the illusion that you are somehow above the limitation of your own interpretation, i.e., that while I, the Protestant, must rely on my own private interpretation to understand Scripture, you, the Catholic, do not have to rely on your interpretation when doing any of these:

• understanding what the Catholic Church teaches
• understanding history, the ECFs, and other documents to determine whether the RCC is the one true church
• understanding the biblical texts that you claim support apostolic succession, the papacy, the authority of the RCC, and so on.

So yes, you do need to give us reason to think that your particular interpretation regarding Transcendent truths from the Biblical evidence is indeed what we must all follow.

I would indeed be willing to do that as long as we agree that the Bible is the common ground we can both start from, and as long as I don’t have to hear any more of this “You can’t understand transcendent truths without an authority to clarify them to you” talk.

Now the ball is in your court (as it has been for awhile). Do you have any defense of what you are saying?

No, the ball is still in the court of the Catholics. I’ve been sitting here on the other side of the net waiting for you all to hit the ball back, but I continue waiting. Nobody has provided me with an infallibly declared list of infallible RCC teachings, simply because none exists. That’s okay; I’ll ask the question in a different way, since it’s obvious the original question cannot be answered or is too difficult to answer. Here: One person in this thread has said that there is only one infallibly declared dogma that he knows of. Do you agree with him?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Of course. You can’t read a text without interpreting it. That should not seem strange. You can’t even read a historical text, which you obviously had to do in coming up with your “natural reason” argument, without interpreting it. The trouble with you, Eufrosnia, and probably every other Catholic who has responded in this thread, is that you are laboring under the illusion that you are somehow above the limitation of your own interpretation, i.e., that while I, the Protestant, must rely on my own private interpretation to understand Scripture, you, the Catholic, do not have to rely on your interpretation when doing any of these:

• understanding what the Catholic Church teaches
• understanding history, the ECFs, and other documents to determine whether the RCC is the one true church
• understanding the biblical texts that you claim support apostolic succession, the papacy, the authority of the RCC, and so on.

The issue here Koineman is that you are considering interpretation of historical/scientific texts to be the same as interpreting texts describing Transcendent truths. There is a key difference in that historical texts speak of truths that we can relate to through experience. Transcendent truths speak of things beyond our experience so we do not know if a particular interpretation is what was meant.

Now Scripture has the Transcendent and Historical parts to it. One can say by studying history, context, language, and writing style if a particular book was written as a historical account, fictional story or symbolic poem/narrative etc. But then there is also the content of these narratives which describe the Transcendent reality. We cannot be sure of what that is by studying more history or context.

To explain it with the example I used before, we can all agree in reading Scripture as historical text that when it says "Jesus said “x,y,z” " it means that Jesus certainly said x,y,z. What we cannot be clear is that we are right is in interpreting that the interpretation of x,y,z is a,b,c and not p,q,r etc. We cannot be sure because we have no actual experience of the Transcendent. I presented John 6 as an example to you before to highlight this.

Now the Catholic position is similar to having Christ with us. That is his church. If we do not understand, we ask the Church. If we go astray, and the Church finds out, she corrects us. In this way, we know when we are wrong. Furthermore, the Church restates the doctrine in a way that all faithful can understand in the times they live in and releases many more to address issues pertaining to that time.

So Catholics have the Scripture AND the guide to the Scriptures as well.

I would indeed be willing to do that as long as we agree that the Bible is the common ground we can both start from, and as long as I don’t have to hear any more of this “You can’t understand transcendent truths without an authority to clarify them to you” talk.

Well, as I said before, the Protestant case requires two Transcendent premises

1. Scripture is the Word of God
2. Holy Spirit guides every individual to the correct interpretation of Scripture

Now I am willing to agree on (1) as a common ground for the sake of this thread. But that still leaves you with having to give reasons for (2). Since (2) is not even a teaching of the Catholic Church, I cannot just agree to that as common ground.

No, the ball is still in the court of the Catholics. I’ve been sitting here on the other side of the net waiting for you all to hit the ball back, but I continue waiting. Nobody has provided me with an infallibly declared list of infallible RCC teachings, simply because none exists. That’s okay; I’ll ask the question in a different way, since it’s obvious the original question cannot be answered. Here: One person in this thread has said that there is only one infallibly declared dogma that he knows of. Do you agree with him?

Let me put it this way. Can you list a Catholic teaching on faith and morals? Yes? THAT teaching is infallible. In other words, all teaching of the Catholic Church on faith and morals is infallible. So if you want a list, you are looking at reading every Church document that has been issued for the entire Church since Christ. All of that must be assented to including the ones that will be taught in the future.

 

[Koineman]

I am not sure how clearly I can say it more than this. ALL CHURCH TEACHINGS ON FAITH AND MORALS ARE INFALLIBLE. ITS LAWS, WHILE NOT INFALLIBLE, REQUIRE ASSENT OF THE WILL.

This page seems to say something different: catholic.com/quickquestions/which-church-teachings-have-been-declared-infallible

The explanation there says that tests can be made to determine if a Catholic teaching is infallible. If all RCC teachings alike were infallible, as you say, why bother with a test?

 

[Koineman]

Here’s an interesting page: americancatholic.org/messenger/aug2004/Wiseman.asp

Note what it says about not everything in every council being infallible.

 

[Eufrosnia]

This page seems to say something different: catholic.com/quickquestions/which-church-teachings-have-been-declared-infallible

The explanation there says that tests can be made to determine if a Catholic teaching is infallible. If all RCC teachings alike were infallible, as you say, why bother with a test?

The test is to figure out if it is being taught. If you have read an encyclical for an example, you will notice that there are discussions before conclusions. The discussions are like an argumentation giving reasons for the conclusion. The argumentation is not necessarily infallible and neither are these propositions considered teaching.

The teachings are declared as conclusions, usually using words like “The Church declares, defines, binding under guilt of sin” etc. It is that distinction that the article you cited is addressing.

So in short, all teachings of the Church are infallible. The discussions of reasons for declaring them are not. This also means, for Catholics, that even if the reasons for a conclusion are wrong, the teaching would still be true and it would mean that there exists another reason for it to be true.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Here’s an interesting page: americancatholic.org/messenger/aug2004/Wiseman.asp

Note what it says about not everything in every council being infallible.

Aah yes, this site and that article is a very special one that would take a lot of time to address and I am sure someone else has probably already addressed it.

But to put it shortly, you have to be a bit careful today on believing anyone who just has the name “Catholic”. Unfortunately in the times we live, anyone can call themselves Catholic or any site Catholic. The site you cited is well known to be a dissident Catholic site.

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=163

Here is a list of sites that usually contain such problems and you should probably avoid those in learning the Catholic faith.

catholicculture.org/search/resultslist.cfm?resourcetype=2&requesttype=sitebrowserate&fidelity=red&resources=0&useability=0

Not everything in these sites are wrong but it is better to cross reference what it says with the Catechism of the Catholic Church or some other well known place that has been endorsed by the Church like EWTN, CAF etc.

But I hope the above post clarified the issue you have with what I said before on what is infallible teaching.

 

[Koineman]

I don’t know if you have been missing what is been said. ALL TEACHINGS of the Church regarding faith and morals are infallible.

“Faith and morals” are pretty broad categories. If I open the CCC, don’t you think anything my eyes read there will fall into either or both of those categories?