Is Catholicism perfect?

[ralphinal]

Then why did Paul have to rebuke Peter’s theology in Galatians?

Please show that it was a theological issue and not one of action.

Why did Paul, John, and Jude (and the writer to the Hebrews) all have to write letters correcting theology even before the death of the apostles?

Not all of the problems were ones of theology. Again, please show specifics

Why did Jesus have to rebuke 5 of the 7 churches of Revelation for having gotten so off track doctrinally within 50 years of His ascension?

Wow. I see a couple of the Churches being told that some of the members are in error, but i do not see Jesus say that the Church was TEACHING the error. More common was an issue with the behavior of the members.

I think the context of Jesus’ statement of the “gates of hell…” not prevailing is that it would not have the ultimate victory…NOT that it would preserve the church inviolate. Otherwise Jesus’ warnings in Matthew 24 and 25 make no sense of false prophets and false teachers. Nor does Paul’s warnings to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 make sense when Paul warns them that false teachers would arise from amongst the Elders!

I ahve no issue with this part. We are not saying that people cannot be wrong. We are saying that the Church cannot be.

I think the original poster’s questions are quite valid and pertinent.

I agree

 

[elvisman]

John 16:13-15:
**"But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. ****He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."

---

What part of this is so hard to understand? Why the debate?

 

[ralphinal]

God can do anything, but it just isnt his style:

1. God made life to evolve on a trial & error basis.
2. In the Torah, God gave the basics and left the details for jews to make using trial & error.
3. Catholics are really using trial & error. If it works, its a product of ex-cathedra. If it doesnt work, then its not ex-cathedra.

I think God is getting much pleasure watching the wheels of change in his creation.

You know, for some of this I agree. I am not a Creationist, so number 1 is cool. Number 2 is a little off. He gave more than the basics. Re-read it. IT was fairly fleshed out. Granted, it evolved into more, but it was more than the 10 Commandments. Number 3 is off. We do not try somehting for a little while and if it works it is kept. As our understanding changes, some of our definitions do as well, but the faith has not changed.

 

[mercygate]

What is “the gates of hell” if not error?

“Gates of Hell” is tangentially associated with error but the promise of infallibility relates more directly to "binding and loosing with the Power of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Church is assured of freedom from teaching error because of the promise Christ Himself gave to the Eleven in John 14 that He would send another paraclete “to guide you into all the truth.” Couple that with the Great Commission at the end of Matthew 28, where Jesus charges the Eleven with “making disciples” and “teaching all that I have commanded you.”

Where you find the Eleven – and their successors, the Bishops – and where you find the Bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, to whom alone is givent he Power of the Keys, THERE is the locus of the Promise of “all the truth.”

How hard is that?

 

[elvisman]

God can do anything, but it just isnt his style:

1. God made life to evolve on a trial & error basis.
2. In the Torah, God gave the basics and left the details for jews to make using trial & error.
3. Catholics are really using trial & error. If it works, its a product of ex-cathedra. If it doesnt work, then its not ex-cathedra.

I think God is getting much pleasure watching the wheels of change in his creation. Perfection is ultimately boring.

Any YOU know God’s “style”??
God doesn’t do things by a certain “style” - he does them by truth because he IS truth.
John 16:13-15 lays out his plan of TRUTH - not style.

 

[NDfan]

again we get back to the interpretations of Scripture. If you are the infallible interpreter of Scripture then say so. also please cite your qualifications in that area.

It’s not about being an infallible interpreter. It’s saying that the gates of hell prevailing against the church doesn’t mean infallible scripture teaching. Since you ask for my qualifications I am a graduate of Bible College. But I would never claim to be infallible. Man is fallible, that’s why we sin. To claim that someone is infallible would mean that you have to be infallible first to make that claim. If you are not infallible then you could never recognize or claim anyone to be infallible because you wouldn’t be able to prove it. You may be able to admit they know more than you but that certainly doesn’t translate into being infallible.

otherwise if you are not infallible, then our interpretations are at least as good as yours.

I wouldn’t disagree with you but that’s not the point of the conversation. The question is if the gates of hell prevail, does that mean that we taught scripture in error? The answer is no. Unless of course we start teaching that Jesus is not our savior. But that doesn’t mean that the gates prevailed against the church. It means it prevailed against some of the individuals within the church. The church of Jesus will always stand and certainly will always stand against the gates of hell.

I say they are better, for a lot of reasons. But could never possibly be less than yours in any case.

That’s your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. It’s not about a competition for me though. I’m just answering the question posted in the thread. If you want to talk about teaching errors then I can certainly give you a few. I already gave one to JMCRAE.

 

[jmcrae]

Agree 100%

Scripture was given to us by GOD.

 

[mercygate]

I keep hearing “true church”. My question is how do we know this? Yes Jesus founded the church, but man has run it since then, and men are not perfect. Surely man does not always listen to the Holy Spirit - if that was so, everyone would listen and be one religion.

I have a very hard time believing the church is perfect and therefore the “true church” meaning exactly what Jesus wanted - and if it is not perfect, then why tell non-Catholics they do not know what’s “right” if there is room for the possibility that the RCC is not “right” on everything either?

I suspect the RCC may be doing what Protestants are doing - interpreting what the Bible says, sometimes through their own “filter” just like each religion has their own “filter” on how they interpret Biblical passages and books. What is everyone’s position on this?

P.S. I don’t mean this thread to be disrespectful either - I want to say this. I really am looking for an answer to this question.

To some extent your question is confused. The physical, political, administrative operation of the Church IS in the hands of often-flawed, mistake-prone men and women.

But the Bride of Christ is pure, unspotted and without wrinkle.

That is not to say that a “spiritual and invisible” Church made up of equally indetectible “true believers” is somehow detached from the visible Church.

In the core of the visible Church is the river of living water that has been flowing from the Heart of our Crucified Lord, teaching without error for two thousand years.

How did you formulate your question: “Is Catholicism perfect?”

 

[AgnosTheist]

Number 2 is a little off. He gave more than the basics. Re-read it. IT was fairly fleshed out. Granted, it evolved into more, but it was more than the 10 Commandments.

i know its around 600+. most of which had been disregarded or “reinterpreted” by jews. christians also disregarded over 90% of them because many are pretty barbaric. Did God care about perfected doctrines? Nah. Change is the rule of Life.

Number 3 is off. We do not try somehting for a little while and if it works it is kept. As our understanding changes, some of our definitions do as well, but the faith has not changed.

The church did try a lot of things.

Do you know how to tell whether something is ex-cathedra or not?

 

[jmcrae]

Then why did Paul have to rebuke Peter’s theology in Galatians?

He did not rebuke his theology - in fact, he upheld it and recognized it as God’s law, by rebuking his actions which were contrary to the law that he himself had made for the Church.

Why did Paul, John, and Jude (and the writer to the Hebrews) all have to write letters correcting theology even before the death of the apostles?

They were correcting those under them; not those above them. The teacher was teaching the students, which is the proper order of things.

Why did Jesus have to rebuke 5 of the 7 churches of Revelation for having gotten so off track doctrinally within 50 years of His ascension?

Because they were no longer following His magisterium - the Apostles. Ask yourself why Jesus appointed St. John (an Apostle) to write them these letters, rather than simply appearing to them Himself, and giving the message in person? (Because He had given His authority to the Apostles, and it was their job to teach, rebuke, and correct the local churches.)

 

[jmcrae]

God can do anything, but it just isnt his style:

So, you don’t know whether God exists or not, but you’re sure of what His style is? Amazing - simply amazing.

 

[AgnosTheist]

So, you don’t know whether God exists or not, but you’re sure of what His style is? Amazing - simply amazing.

Based on the Torah, its not.

 

[NDfan]

NDfan;3616191:

Agree 100%

By means of the teachings of the Church. Members of the Church (Apostles and early Fathers) wrote various epistles and memoirs, some of which were later found to be inspired and inerrant, when compared with the oral teachings of the Church.

Right so what the church was practicing was found to be in scripture. So you are confirming the point that scripture contains what was taught.

Yes, and this was at the very same time

that they were developing rules around celibacy for monks and priests, and talking about Mary’s perpetual virginity, and giving her titles like “Theotokos” and “Mother of God,” none of which we find in Scripture. Yet, they thought that these things were just as important as what they were finding in Scripture.

So you are making the claim that as the canonical books were being developed other doctrines were as well. Big deal. Just because someone at that point in time thought Mary was a perpetual virgin doesn’t mean they were right and doesn’t prove at all that it should have been doctrine. The fact that it’s not in scripture should have been a major strike against creating the doctrine.

Here’s a snapshot of the relevant pages in my history book, if you think I’m just blowing smoke, here …

I’m not saying you or your history book are blowing smoke. Just because it’s written in a history book doesn’t make it infallible doctrine

There is very little that has changed, actually - you might like to do a little reading of your own in the first and second century writers, rather than simply parrot something that you have heard.

Parrot something I have heard. Spare me the links to your Roman Catholic web sites and your sarcasm. I can assure you I’m well qualified to comment on first and second century writers.

If not much has changed as you say then how come Mary’s perpetual virginity is never found in the first or second century. Show me one church father who we believe had contact with the Apostles that makes this claim. That would be Polycarp, Clement or Ignatius. Show me one person from the first or second century that wrote that Mary crushed the head of the serpent. This alone is a major shift from what the Bible states so don’t throw the rubbish out that not much has changed.

The usual response to this is, “Yes, but we are so much more progressed, today, than they were, and we understand it better, now.” Before

saying that, though, think it through and explain how, with less information than they had, “we” have greater knowledge.

Actually I’m not saying this. But the RCC makes this very statement when creating doctrine. Specifically regarding the Marian dogmas they make the claim they have developed a better understanding of scripture. So maybe you can answer your own question.

 

[jmcrae]

Based on the Torah, its not.

Based on the Torah, He exists.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Based on the Torah, He exists.

For the sake of the discussion, let him exist.

If the God of the bible exists, giving perfect doctrines is not his style. Thats why christians reject all but 10 of his old commandments.

 

[Yeshualuver]

Please show that it was a theological issue and not one of action.

Aren’t our actions supposed to be a reflection of our beliefs? How can one separate the two? Our theology WILL be borne out by our actions. But the verses I refer to are specifically Galatians 2:11-14 (really to the end of the chapter is best, but to 14 is good)

Not all of the problems were ones of theology. Again, please show specifics

Please see above response.

1. Refuting gnosticism: Colossians 2:2-4, 18, 21, 23
2. Reliance on human wisdom, philosophies and traditions: Col. 2:4-8
3. Some were teaching (probably gnostics since they held that the physical body was “bad”) that there would be no bodily resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 and 35-36
4. False apostles in the church: 2 Cor. 11:4,13-15; 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2 (the whole chapter). The whole book of 1 John is a refutation of gnosticism with phrases like: "he who denies Jesus came in the flesh…"etc.) 3 John 9-10, Jude (the whole book)
5. Against legalism and works righteousness: Galatians 3:1-5
6. Against false teachings of the end times: 2 Thess. 2:1-2
7. Revelation: The letter to the church in Ephesus there is a warning that if the church doesn’t repent and return to her first love that Jesus will remove its lampstand. Lampstand is explained as being the church in Rev. 1:20

b) The church of Pergamum: was warned to repent of the false teachings in the church of Balaam (compromise and “for profit” teaching) and the teachings of the Nicolaitians. The admonition to repent of this teaching is in Rev. 2:16

c) The church in Thyatira: the teachings of Jezebel were leading “my servants” astray. (Rev. 2:20,24). Here also teachings and ways (actions) are referred to as one in the same or being cohesive (2:22)

d) The church in Sardis: Life not reflecting teachings (see my first response) 3:3

We are not saying that people cannot be wrong. We are saying that the Church cannot be. We are saying that the Church cannot be.

Who is the Church and those who make the policies and decrees but those in the Magesterium who give the teachings? Are they not men who can be fallible as you said?

 

[jmcrae]

Right so what the church was practicing was found to be in scripture. So you are confirming the point that scripture contains what was taught.

Scripture is consistent with the Oral Teachings, yes. Of course, it cannot contain everything. St. John tells us that it would take more paper than the world can hold, to write it all down, which is why most of it was passed down in oral form.

So you are making the claim that as the canonical books were being developed other doctrines were as well.

Yes, and by the same group of people.

Big deal. Just because someone at that point in time thought Mary was a perpetual virgin doesn’t mean they were right and doesn’t prove at all that it should have been doctrine. The fact that it’s not in scripture should have been a major strike against creating the doctrine.

Why? Since it’s the same people who were being inspired by the Holy Spirit to give the canon of the New Testament, who came up with all of these. If they were wrong on one, but right on the other, how do you discern which is which?

I’m not saying you or your history book are blowing smoke. Just because it’s written in a history book doesn’t make it infallible doctrine

It makes it an actual event in history though, and takes away the argument that the Church that gave us the New Testament didn’t believe in things like Mary’s perpetual virgnity, or practice clerical celibacy.

If not much has changed as you say then how come Mary’s perpetual virginity is never found in the first or second century.

“New Eve.” “Theotokos.” “Spouse of the Holy Spirit.” Do these terms sound at all familiar?

Show me one church father who we believe had contact with the Apostles that makes this claim.

I gave you one already - did you even look?

 

[ralphinal]

Aren’t our actions supposed to be a reflection of our beliefs? How can one separate the two? Our theology WILL be borne out by our actions.

Ah, perhaps. The only issue is do we not at times do what is against God’s laws anyway? Is that not what it means to ne human and sin? Peter had already spoken against forcing Gentile converts to follow the Jewish laws BEFORE Paul had to correct him for being pro-Judao with the Jewish Christians and pro-Gentile with the Gentile. Basically, Peter was being a politician.

Please see above response.

1. Refuting gnosticism: Colossians 2:2-4, 18, 21, 23

1. Reliance on human wisdom, philosophies and traditions: Col. 2:4-8

1. Some were teaching (probably gnostics since they held that the physical body was “bad”) that there would be no bodily resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15:12-13 and 35-36

1. False apostles in the church: 2 Cor. 11:4,13-15; 1 Tim. 1:3-7; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2 (the whole chapter). The whole book of 1 John is a refutation of gnosticism with phrases like: "he who denies Jesus came in the flesh…"etc.) 3 John 9-10, Jude (the whole book)

1. Against legalism and works righteousness: Galatians 3:1-5

1. Against false teachings of the end times: 2 Thess. 2:1-2

I thought these were the verses that you wanted to mention. Can you say that the ENTIRE leadership of these churches had fallen into error, or was it an error of some that was the issue?

1. Revelation: The letter to the church in Ephesus there is a warning that if the church doesn’t repent and return to her first love that Jesus will remove its lampstand. Lampstand is explained as being the church in Rev. 1:20

b) The church of Pergamum: was warned to repent of the false teachings in the church of Balaam (compromise and “for profit” teaching) and the teachings of the Nicolaitians. The admonition to repent of this teaching is in Rev. 2:16

c) The church in Thyatira: the teachings of Jezebel were leading “my servants” astray. (Rev. 2:20,24). Here also teachings and ways (actions) are referred to as one in the same or being cohesive (2:22)

d) The church in Sardis: Life not reflecting teachings (see my first response) 3:3

If you look at it, it was not the entire church that was in error on any of these. IN fact, some were praised in each one. To say that the entire Church in each of these was in error is un-biblical.

Who is the Church and those who make the policies and decrees but those in the Magesterium who give the teachings? Are they not men who can be fallible as you said?

The Church is the Body of Christ, the collection of all who are baptised into the Crucifixion and share in the inheritance of God. The Church Militant, those here on earth, have Bishops and Priests to lead us. These Bishops in union with the pope make up the Magisterium, which is protected by the Holy Spirit from error, as promised by Christ (He will lead us to all Truth). Yes, the men can make mistakes, but the Holy Spirit cannot.

See, if you accept the model of church that is not a visible collection of believers, and say that the promise of the Holy Spirit was to any individual alone, then you are in effect saying that it is not a corporate salvation that God has for us. It is not about all of us helping each other to get to God. I think that you can see that Christianity is not a solitary endevour.