Is Catholicism perfect?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pinkyyy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pinkyyy

Guest
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.
 
Pinkyyy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Jesus promised to protect His Church from teaching any error. It doesn’t mean that people won’t sin - Peter himself, our first Pope, denied Christ three times, and I’m not sure how anybody could do anything worse than that, but Jesus still promised to Peter, “The gates of Hell cannot prevail over you.” Obviously Jesus knew that Peter was a sinner, so He didn’t mean that Peter would never sin, but just that he and his successors would never teach error.
 
jmcrae said:
Jesus promised to protect His Church from teaching any error.
Click to expand...
jesus was referring to the gates of hell. its quite a stretch that you came up with the interpretation of ‘error’.
 
jmcrae said:
What is “the gates of hell” if not error? 🤷
Click to expand...
Gates of hell is not error. It means if we are in the church then we will not go to hell. Why in the world would you equate teaching infallibly with the gates not prevailing 🤷
 
NDfan said:
Gates of hell is not error. It means if we are in the church then we will not go to hell. Why in the world would you equate teaching infallibly with the gates not prevailing 🤷
Click to expand...
Same difference - if you are in the Church then you are not believing any error, meaning that you are not being taught any error by the Church, meaning that the Church is not teaching you any error.
 
jmcrae said:
Same difference - if you are in the Church then you are not believing any error, meaning that you are not being taught any error by the Church, meaning that the Church is not teaching you any error.
Click to expand...
do you think any error in belief would land a believer in hell?
 
jmcrae said:
Same difference - if you are in the Church then you are not believing any error, meaning that you are not being taught any error by the Church, meaning that the Church is not teaching you any error.
Click to expand...
If I’m in the church it’s because I believe in Christ which we both will agree is not an error. But I came to Christ through the teachings of scripture, not because someone from the church taught me infallibly. Matter of fact I find some teachings to be in error but I would never say that the gates of hell prevailed because of that. Making mistakes doesn’t mean the gates prevail, it means we’re human. Jesus never promised we humans would be infallilble.

If the gates prevail it’s because I personally gave up Christ which means I gave up HIS church. The church will always stand meaning Christ will always prevail against the gates of hell. Individuals may choose to leave it but it doesn’t mean they are taught infallibly while in it.
 
AgnosTheist said:
do you think any error in belief would land a believer in hell?
Click to expand...
If it’s not his own fault, then no - but why would Jesus establish an organization that would (or could) promulgate falsehoods about Him? We are closer to Heaven when we are closer to Truth.

Also, if you are just as likely to be taught falsehoods in the Church as out of it, then what is the benefit of belonging to the Church? Why would anyone bother, and why would Jesus require it? 🤷
 
NDfan said:
If I’m in the church it’s because I believe in Christ which we both will agree is not an error.
Click to expand...
Obviously, since Christ founded the Church.
But I came to Christ through the teachings of scripture, not because someone from the church taught me infallibly.
Click to expand...
Actually, in a round-about way, you were taught by the Church, since the Scriptures are given by the Church; they didn’t come directly from God, or fall down from Heaven.
Matter of fact I find some teachings to be in error but I would never say that the gates of hell prevailed because of that. Making mistakes doesn’t mean the gates prevail, it means we’re human. Jesus never promised we humans would be infallilble.
Click to expand...
So. why be in the Church, then? Especially if you already know more than the Church with its 2000 years of experience and thousands of theologians with their many years of training, and can judge whether the teachings are right or wrong? 🤷
 
I think we can get it wrong sometimes. We are human trying to follow Christ as best we can. What was meant when Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail???

What I have been taught is that it’s not so much that it is about inerrancy (look at the direction that the Church has taken sometimes - We can all agree that some leaders protestant and catholic have taken the Church in bad directions) but that Satan will never be able to take us down. The Church has been persecuted and still is being persecuted but WE (protestant and catholic) still stand. There are those who face danger and death to believe in Christ and to worship Him but WE (protestant and catholic) still prevail. Satan cannot stop us, we still forward and spread Christ throughout this world and THAT is what ‘the gates of Hell won’t prevail’ means…

Satan, thank the Lord, will never win…👍
 
NDfan said:
Gates of hell is not error. It means if we are in the church then we will not go to hell. Why in the world would you equate teaching infallibly with the gates not prevailing 🤷
Click to expand...
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.

otherwise if you are not infallible, then our interpretations are at least as good as yours. I say they are better, for a lot of reasons. But could never possibly be less than yours in any case.
 
What you have to do is go through the bible, ITs better if you do this for yourself. ITs will tell you what the four Marks of the one true Church is. It may take awhile but its worth it. Then when you find the Church with the Four Marks you found the One True Church. And yes the One true church will be Perfect. Because it will be made up of Jesus Christ himself. Good Luck, start studying.
 
jmcrae said:
If it’s not his own fault, then no - but why would Jesus establish an organization that would (or could) promulgate falsehoods about Him?
Click to expand...
Because of free will.
jmcrae said:
Also, if you are just as likely to be taught falsehoods in the Church as out of it, then what is the benefit of belonging to the Church? Why would anyone bother,
Click to expand...
The benefit of brotherhood.
jmcrae said:
and why would Jesus require it? 🤷
Click to expand...
to more effectively spread his message. a group of people working together can do this better than an individual.
 
I think that there are several questions that must be answered.
  1. Can there be a True Church, founded by Christ whose Doctrine can be without error?
  2. Is it possible that Christ can protect His Church from being in error dispite the fact that people are in it?
  3. Is it fair to call the failings of the members of the Church proof of error in the Church itself?
  4. What is this Church, if it exists at all?
Answers
  1. Yes, there can be a true Church founded by Christ that has no error in doctrine. It is obvious that Jesus wanted to start a church and that he wanted that Church to be One as he and the Father are one. Further, he promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church on the way
  2. Yes. To deny that God can protect the faithful is to deny God Himself. If you accept that God exists as Christians understand Him, you must accept that He could protect his Faith from errors in doctrine
  3. No. It is not fair to say that because the people that are in the Church fail, the Church itself is in error. That is like saying because one policeman took a bribe, all are guilty. No, just because a man sins does not mean that his creed is wrong. It just shows that man will sin against God.
  4. Yes, that church does exist and we can know it to. We can trace the faith back to Christ in two lines, Catholic (Those in union with Rome, any Rite) and Orthodox. Feel free to try. No other faith denomination can do the same.
Now, if it is possible that Jesus founded a Church, has the ability to protect the Doctrine from errors, that the failings of men do not show that the Doctrine is in and of itself in error, and we can see that the Catholics and the Orthodox can trace themselves back to Christ, why can we not say that they are the True Church? If we can say that, then why should we not proclaim that we are the Church that Christ wants everyone to join?
 
jmcrae said:
Jesus promised to protect His Church from teaching any error. It doesn’t mean that people won’t sin - Peter himself, our first Pope, denied Christ three times, and I’m not sure how anybody could do anything worse than that, but Jesus still promised to Peter, “The gates of Hell cannot prevail over you.” Obviously Jesus knew that Peter was a sinner, so He didn’t mean that Peter would never sin, but just that he and his successors would never teach error.
Click to expand...
Then why did Paul have to rebuke Peter’s theology in Galatians?

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?

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?

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 think the original poster’s questions are quite valid and pertinent.
 
jmcrae said:
Obviously, since Christ founded the Church.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
Actually, in a round-about way, you were taught by the Church, since the Scriptures are given by the Church; they didn’t come directly from God, or fall down from Heaven.
Click to expand...
Scripture was given to us by GOD. Or should I say scripture was inspired by GOD. GOD didn’t personally write them as in the case of the 10 commandments. And technically since there were so many writings to choose from the church guided by the spirit canonized a final list.
So. why be in the Church, then? Especially if you already know more than the Church with its 2000 years of experience and thousands of theologians with their many years of training, and can judge whether the teachings are right or wrong? 🤷
Click to expand...
Well I’m in the church once I profess and accept Jesus as my savior. It’s not like I accept Jesus and then join the church. By default I become part of the church.

As far as knowing more than 2000 years of experience, that’s a shallow statement as I never professed that. I said I found some teachings to be in error. The church of the first and second century did not teach some things that are taught today.

If you want to talk about error, then how about the copy error that was made in Genesis 3:15 in the Vulgate? The RCC still teaches that Mary crushes the head of the serpent. The original hebrew wrote the word “it” but used masculine pronouns. The Septuagint was translated as HE, but many english translations of the Vulgate wrote she because Jerome used the word Ipsa. Ipsa in Latin can mean he, she, or it. I believe the NASB which is RCC approved has HE. But guess what. Since the Pope declared it as doctrine it has to be defended. So does that mean the gates of hell prevailed?? No. It means someone made an honest error. But instead of correcting the error the RCC claims infallibility and finds a way to defend it.

One final point. Scripture plainly tells us that GOD gives each of us gifts: teaching, prophesy, preaching, serving etc. Scripture never tells us that teaching error-free is contained solely within the Magisterium. Would that be Sola-Magisteria 😃 (just kidding of course)
 
ralphinal said:
  1. Can there be a True Church, founded by Christ whose Doctrine can be without error?
  2. Is it possible that Christ can protect His Church from being in error dispite the fact that people are in it?
Click to expand...
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. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top