Personal interpretation

[grannymh]

The OP posted. “It has been explained on this forum that it is wrong to interpret the bible on our own. Why is that wrong? What is the correct way to interpret the bible?”

Part of this thread has gone into how does the Catholic Church interpret the Bible when it comes to natural science. Because there has been a lot of confusion about theological dogmas and local decrees, the following is presented.

General Information regarding the operation of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

First, it important to note that at the time of Galileo, major theological dogmas were usually defined at Church Councils. There was no Church Council in session at the time of the local event concerning Galileo

Papal Commissions are not Church Councils and do not have the authority of Church Councils. Members of commissions, including popes and saints, can express their opinions. A specific theological dogma is a certainty and not a bunch of opposing opinions as in the case of Renaissance science.

Jesus Christ did not build His Church on opinions regarding scientific theories in the 17th century. In fact, the period of Divine Revelation had closed long before that.

The Congregation of the Holy Office was not empowered to define a new specific theological dogma about the precise position of one material/physical planet in the entire universe. Of course, members of the congregation could give their individual opinions. The Catholic Deposit of Faith is not made up of opinions from the 17th century.

There was a tradition dating from the Apostolic Age that when there was an important issue of faith, not science, a great deal of time and consultation took place before any theological dogmas were presented to a Church Council for approval. Local decrees and teachings are not the same as theological dogmas defined and properly proclaimed at a Church Council.

The powers of the Congregation of the Index did not include writing new dogmas specifically stating the physical position of earth in relationship to the rest of God’s creation.

The Pope does have the authority to teach on faith and morals. There is no record of a properly called Church Council proclaiming a specific 17th century scientific theory regarding one material/physical planet in the entire universe as a theological dogma. There is plenty of evidence that Popes did express their opinions about Renaissance science. Catholic theological dogmas are not opinions about Renaissance science.

All that has been presented regarding the local issues of geocentrism and heliocentrism are not theological dogmas.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[atmmgraves]

“Inside the Church the blind lead the blind as Christ warned.”

This sort of stuff is not only flat out disrespectful and unwarranted, it is also the height of absurdity. So, by following John 6 and Jesus’ own words through participating in the Eucharist, we are engaging in Christ warned of? By keeping the commandments, we are doing what Christ warned against? By being baptized? By having scriprutal readings at Mass? What? By synthecizing our Tradition and scripture into a Catechism for our adherents to correctly understand the Catholic faith - a voluntary organization - we are doing what Christ warned against? By not splintering into 30k plus denominations which each claim to preach the real truth we are doing what Christ warned against? I’m sorry, sir/madame, but you are completely off base here.

All of your questions have been answered, over and over, including your continued insistence that somehow planet rotation has something to do with faith and morals. You are reaching far outside the realm of the reasonable to score some points against the Catholic Church, while failing to see the truth that has been laid out for you repeatedly.

If you wish to continue looking but not seeing and listening but not hearing, that is fine. But you need to be more respectful in the process.

 

[Whiggamore]

No. It doesn’t matter what words are used. In fact, even if a pope claimed he was making an infallible statement it would still depend on whether the criteria for infallibility was met and not wheter the pope said it was infallible. In fact if the pope said:

"“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema,”

I would bet that it would not rain the next day. WHY? because the Pope is not infallible in matters of meteorology and it does not matter one twit what formula or words his meteorological statement was couched in.

I disagree. It will rain tomorrow, and that it will rain tomorrow concerns faith and morals. Why else would the Holy Spirit reveal this important truth to the Holy Father?

 

[inkaneer]

Originally Posted by inkaneer
No. It doesn’t matter what words are used. In fact, even if a pope claimed he was making an infallible statement it would still depend on whether the criteria for infallibility was met and not wheter the pope said it was infallible. In fact if the pope said:

"“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that IT WILL RAIN TOMORROW so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema,”

I would bet that it would not rain the next day. WHY? because the Pope is not infallible in matters of meteorology and it does not matter one twit what formula or words his meteorological statement was couched in.

I disagree. It will rain tomorrow, and that it will rain tomorrow concerns faith and morals. Why else would the Holy Spirit reveal this important truth to the Holy Father?

But that is the point. Whether it rains tomorrow or not is not a matter of faith and morals. Therefore any statement by the pope on the forecast for tomorrow is not an infallible statement. It is obvious that you do not understand the dogma of papal infallibility. If you did you would realize the foolishness of your post.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen, I don’t know about the Galileo case, but if a Pope says something like “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that … so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema,” would you not accept it? Would you not just assume that even though you might categorize the subject matter as not concerning “faith and morals” that it indeed does by virtue of the Pope’s words?

And cassini, you make a convincing case.

I haven’t kept up with the posts just lately but I thought it might be beneficial to put the following on the table for consideration:

What is the principle behind the charism of infallibility-what is its purpose? The purpose of this gift, in general, is to preclude the possibility of error from contaminating the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals. This means that you and I can be assured that the gospel we receive is the correct one-that Gods nature and will, especially in regard to our salvation, is certain.

Now, if Pope so-and-so were to declare it heretical to believe that elephants have trunks, I might respond with, “Simplicio, I wish you wouldn’t do that-it makes my Church look stupid”, but has the treasure trove of doctrine regarding my salvation been compromised? Not at all-the Holy Spirit has continued to have His way because the truth of our faith have not been abrogated in spite of human frailty or bumbling on other matters. Galileo himself agreed with Augustine that the purpose of the Church and scripture was salvation rather than to teach science.

OTOH, if it turned out that polygenism, rather than monogenism, was true regarding human origins, then the CC would be proved wrong-by her stance on a matter of science integrally related to her teachings on a matter of faith, i.e. the doctrine of original sin.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen, I don’t know about the Galileo case, but if a Pope says something like “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that … so then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema,” would you not accept it? Would you not just assume that even though you might categorize the subject matter as not concerning “faith and morals” that it indeed does by virtue of the Pope’s words?

And cassini, you make a convincing case.

I haven’t kept up with the posts just lately but I thought it might be beneficial to put the following on the table for consideration:

What is the principle behind the charism of infallibility-what is its purpose? The purpose of this gift, in general, is to preclude the possibility of error from contaminating the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals. This means that you and I can be assured that the gospel we receive is the correct one-that Gods nature and will, especially in regard to our salvation, is certain.

Now, if Pope so-and-so were to declare it heretical to believe that elephants have trunks, I might respond with, “Simplicio, I wish you wouldn’t do that-it makes my Church look stupid”, but has the treasure trove of doctrine regarding my salvation been compromised? Not at all-the Holy Spirit has continued to have His way because the truths of our faith have not been abrogated in spite of human frailty or bumbling on other matters. Galileo himself agreed with Augustine that the purpose of the Church and scripture was salvation, rather than to teach science.

OTOH, if it turned out that polygenism, rather than monogenism, was true regarding human origins, then the CC would be proved wrong-by her stance on a matter of science integrally related to her teachings on a matter of faith, i.e. the doctrine of original sin.

 

[cassini]

I disagree. The Galileo case was about Galileo’s claim that the scriptures, specifically Joshua 10:13, was wrong. It was Galileo who was on trial not Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. If Galileo had said that Johua 10:13 was misunderstood or misinterpreted he would not be on trial for heresy but he didn’t. He said the scriptures were wrong and consequently they were not inerrant. That was heresy. And that was what got Galileo in deep doo doo. Good thing he was Catholic as the protestants would have burned him at the stake. As for your claim that “…factual statements of the Bible held by the Fathers are relevations and cannot be challenged.” that is pure poppycock. Even the Great Augustine has been challenged not to mention Tertullian and Origen. You are trying to wrap the Fathers in a mantle of infallibility which the Church has denied they have. The Fathers and their teachings are not infallible. Their value to us is in the historical witness they provide as testimony that this is the faith, the doctrines they believed in their time, is still the same today.

Well inkaneer, disagrere all you like on Galileo but history records differently. Galileo was many things, but he never ever said the Bible contained errors. Proof of this position can be shown from the minutes of his trial held on the 22nd June 1633 in the convent of the Minerva; and there, in the presence of the Cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office, the sentence was pronounced:’:

“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture."

As for your opinion on the Fathers well disagree on that too all you like. Trouble is, it contradicts the teaching of the Church like so:

From the teaching of the Council of Trent, the Sacred Scriptures decreed on April 8, 1546:

‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ — (Denzinger - 786)

Given the Church’s duty is to preserve truth, and truth is reality, physical, philosophical and spiritual reality that permeates all time, past, present and future, even to its co-relationship with eternity, then all things that threaten truth must be condemned and corrected by the Church. This obligation was dogmatised at Vatican Council I of 1869-70:

‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ — (Denzinger - 1795-98.)

 

[PRmerger]

Is it possible that the reason for this is because not all people who consider themselves Catholics understand (correctly interpret) certain RCC teachings?

Oh, to be sure this is quite true.

In fact, if you ask the average Joe-Catholic-in-the-pews the question, “What is the Immaculate Conception?” you’re likely to get a blank stare.

It is my observation that the RCC has placed a very heavy burden on its followers. They MUST **correctly interpret **both Scripture and all of the numerous RCC traditions.

I suppose an atheist could level the same accusation against Christians and say that “It is my observation that Christianity has placed a very heavy burden on its followers. They MUST correctly interpret both Scripture and all of the numerous preachings of their fallible pastors.”

The atheist’s observation does not change the fact that Christianity is true, eh?

 

[cassini]

“Inside the Church the blind lead the blind as Christ warned.”

This sort of stuff is not only flat out disrespectful and unwarranted, it is also the height of absurdity. So, by following John 6 and Jesus’ own words through participating in the Eucharist, we are engaging in Christ warned of? By keeping the commandments, we are doing what Christ warned against? By being baptized? By having scriprutal readings at Mass? What? By synthecizing our Tradition and scripture into a Catechism for our adherents to correctly understand the Catholic faith - a voluntary organization - we are doing what Christ warned against? By not splintering into 30k plus denominations which each claim to preach the real truth we are doing what Christ warned against? I’m sorry, sir/madame, but you are completely off base here.

All of your questions have been answered, over and over, including your continued insistence that somehow planet rotation has something to do with faith and morals. You are reaching far outside the realm of the reasonable to score some points against the Catholic Church, while failing to see the truth that has been laid out for you repeatedly.

If you wish to continue looking but not seeing and listening but not hearing, that is fine. But you need to be more respectful in the process.

PR and atmmgraves believe my position has been defeated, and they are tired of correcting me, they are getting fed up with my not conceding to their version of history, so want me gone. They now accuse me of insulting them, no doubt hoping to get me off this topic one way or another. I no longer feel very welcome here, so this shall be my last contribution…

Before I go, let me say a few last words. Many years ago I was intrigued by a man who told me that one of the great mysteries of iniquity is that the lie has prevailed throughout history. It is part of the human condition, brought about by Original Sin. How hard it is to get truth to be believed. He quoted me the Gospels about pearls and swine and explained how he took this gospel advice and has become an observer now rather than trying to correct anything to do with God, Creation or the Catholic Church. I thought differently. I thought Christians would be open to the truth once offered to them. How wrong I was, how right he was.

The Galileo case has gone down in history as the Church’s greatest failure. The Church, popes, cardinals and theologians involved have been ridiculed throughout the centuries by both the Church’s ememies and by theose within the Church itself. History shows up centuries of Catholics making up excuses all trying to get the Church off the Hook of Contradiction. Read up what went on between 1741 and 1835 within the Church and you would be ashamed to see how science became the god of truth in Catholicism rather than the Church decree and the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. Galileo’s hermeneutics have been adopted by churchmen and the hermeneutics of the 17th century Church, that of the Fathers, thrown out when corrected by so-called science…

Now that it can be shown the Church of 1616 and 1633 were never in error, nobody wants to know within Catholicism. The sham created in the Church when under the impression it was proven false has become a new dogma. So be it.

 

[PRmerger]

PR and atmmgraves believe my position has been defeated, and they are tired of correcting me,

No, cassini, I am not tired of correcting you. I only proffer that your position has been addressed ad nauseum, on multiple threads, the multiple times you’ve cut/pasted your same argument.

It seems that you prefer to present yourself as bumptious, and that is quite puzzling.

they are getting fed up with my not conceding to their version of history, so want me gone

Not at all. You are welcome to post here, provided you abide by the forum rules and show respect for our Church.

You may, of course, leave by your choice.

I suspected that this was going to follow in the path of the Evanescent Non-Catholic Poster (ENCP). The ENCP posits his arguments, then when they are refuted and rebutted, fades away. There is no argument against the Catholic Church that cannot be answered. No objection that cannot be withdrawn.

Hence, the existence of the ENCP.

 

[grannymh]

OTOH, if it turned out that polygenism, rather than monogenism, was true regarding human origins, then the CC would be proved wrong-by her stance on a matter of science integrally related to her teachings on a matter of faith, i.e. the doctrine of original sin.

Regarding interpretation of Catholicism in regard to natural science and Catholic doctrine.

As one currently researching human origins, including the theories regarding polygenism/population ancestral beings, may I assure you that the possibility of monogenism cannot be universally ruled out. The findings of natural science research do not warrant the media’s conclusions. Nor will scientific findings ever rule out Adam, because of the simple reason that there is very little real data from millions of years going backwards. Upon inspection, it is the principles of human nature, found in the written account of Genesis and taught in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* which provide the evidence of our two, true, real, fully complete human parents, lovingly known as Adam and Eve.

Because I respect and understand the current ban on evolution discussion, I will not go beyond the above affirmation that monogenism will always be the real explanation for our existence.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[inkaneer]

Well inkaneer, disagrere all you like on Galileo but history records differently. …

Well it is obvious to me that you have your own version of history so I will leave you to it. It has already been pinted out to you that your argument has been repeatedly refuted yet you persist is beating a dead horse. You insist on being the only one in the marching band who is in step. So march on.

 

[Doggg]

Oh, to be sure this is quite true.

In fact, if you ask the average Joe-Catholic-in-the-pews the question, “What is the Immaculate Conception?” you’re likely to get a blank stare.

I suppose an atheist could level the same accusation against Christians and say that “It is my observation that Christianity has placed a very heavy burden on its followers. They MUST correctly interpret both Scripture and all of the numerous preachings of their fallible pastors.”

The atheist’s observation does not change the fact that Christianity is true, eh?

Great answer! I still believe in spite of the fact that I lack the ability to prove many of the things that I believe.

How do Catholics, who, like all of us, have fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the CC)?

 

[PRmerger]

Great answer! I still believe in spite of the fact that I lack the ability to prove many of the things that I believe.

How do Catholics, who, like all of us, have fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the CC)?

Haven’t we been over this before?

Once more, with feeling!

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[PRmerger]

Doggg, are we to assume, from your silence, that you had never considered where the Bible came from, prior to this thread?

Did you really just think it came together “somehow through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, but that no church produced it?

 

[PRmerger]

How do Catholics, who, like all of us, have fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the CC)?

Incidentally, Doggg, as a Christian you ought to believe that you “have obtained infallible knowledge”, too.

If you don’t then you cannot evangelize to, say, the Muslim or to the atheist, that you have received God’s revelation.

 

[Shannon9791]

Doggg, are we to assume, from your silence, that you had never considered where the Bible came from, prior to this thread?

Did you really just think it came together “somehow through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”, but that no church produced it?

I’m going to piggy-back this with another question that falls in the same line. What did the earliest Christians do before there was a Bible?

 

[inkaneer]

Great answer! I still believe in spite of the fact that I lack the ability to prove many of the things that I believe.

How do Catholics, who, like all of us, have fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the CC)?

Because we have two sources of truth. Both emanate from the Holy Spirit. We have the Written Tradition and we have the Oral Tradition. Together they comprise what we call the Apostolic Tradition or the teachings of the Apostles. Since both emanate from the same source, the Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction between the two and both then are authoritative.

Protestants can’t seem to grasp this notion of a church with authority. I think it stems from a poor understanding of Jesus’ words in Mt 16:18-19 and what it means to bind and to loose. I also think protestants don’t realize the real significance of Jesus words that hell would not prevail over the church. Mt 16:18-19 is the NT fulfillment of the OT Davidic kingdom as prefigured in Isaiah 22:22.

 

[Doggg]

Haven’t we been over this before?

Once more, with feeling!

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

Perhaps you didn’t understand (correctly interpret) my question, which is:

How do Catholics, who, like all of us, have fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the CC)?

In your reply, you just repeated the exact same assertions involving exactly the same bible verses…which, as you’ve already agreed, can be wrongly interpreted by us because we are fallible people!

It wouldn’t take a philosophy professor to recognize that your claim to KNOW that the RCC is your infallible teaching authority is hanging upon and dependent upon a chain with a very weak link–your own fallible reasoning from your own fallible interpretation of words.

 

[grannymh]

Perhaps you didn’t understand (correctly interpret) my question, which is:

How do Catholics, who, like all of us, have fallible reasoning, fallible interpretation of words, and fallible logic, manage to know that they have obtained infallible knowledge from an infallible teaching authority (the CC)?

I have woman’s logic which is the top authority.

If I were to answer your question, I would say that I choose the infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church because when it comes to understanding human nature, what it is and what is its ultimate purpose,Catholicism is the most logical.

Blessings,
granny

THE HOLY EUCHARIST
IS THE LIGHT, STRENGTH AND LIFE OF OUR SOULS.