To Protestants/fallen away Catholics; the Church cannot err!

[patg]

I’m having a little trouble with this whole “can’t err” discussion. We can’t prove whether there is or is not error in the dogmas or teachings because we can’t go back in time and we can’t interview witnesses (and for many things even those actions wouldn’t help). All the reasoning ultimately comes down to “Its true because we say it is” and “believe it because we say you must”. There can be no proof of error in the way we humans think of proof.

Thus these things can’t really be “argued” in the human sense - you accept them or you don’t (or in my case, you accept some and express doubt about others).

For example, did Mary and Jesus bodily rise throught the clouds into heaven? Well, such a statement implies acceptance of the ancient concept of a 3 tiered universe consisting only of the earth, the sky, and heaven (a physical place above the dome of the sky). This teaching makes perfect sense in that universe. We now know, however, that our universe is vastly different and that if anything ascended through the clouds, it would definitely not run directly into heaven. The statement also implies that heaven is a physical place since physcal bodies can go there.

Did the Gospel writer witness these events? - most likely not since the writings were done many years later and we have no idea as to who the authors were. Was the author trying to indicate the special nature of these individuals? - definitely yes. Does the Church expect blind faith that this really happened without even acknowledging that there may be problems with that? - yes… And those are the kind of things I treat as errors and choose not to accept.

Is this one example a big deal? No, I’ll admit it is not. Is there a really big pile of similar not big deals? Yes - and that is what I have difficulties with.

Pat

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

patg:

I’m having a little trouble with this whole “can’t err” discussion. We can’t prove whether there is or is not error in the dogmas or teachings because we can’t go back in time and we can’t interview witnesses (and for many things even those actions wouldn’t help). All the reasoning ultimately comes down to “Its true because we say it is” and “believe it because we say you must”. There can be no proof of error in the way we humans think of proof.

Thus these things can’t really be “argued” in the human sense - you accept them or you don’t (or in my case, you accept some and express doubt about others).

For example, did Mary and Jesus bodily rise throught the clouds into heaven? Well, such a statement implies acceptance of the ancient concept of a 3 tiered universe consisting only of the earth, the sky, and heaven (a physical place above the dome of the sky).

Don’t forget the underworld - as in Numbers 16.​

Maybe the writers were describing the Ascension in terms familiar to their culture, without bothering either way about whether the “concept” in question was correct.

The “cloud” in the text is almost certainly not a mere feature of the weather, but the cloud of the Glory of God (compare Exodus 14; Exodus 40 [and Luke 1: “overshadow” is significant]; 1 Kings 8). IOW, maybe the event is being described in theological terminology, so that the meaning of it is brought out.

I found the article on the Ascension in the 1967 “New Catholic Encyclopedia” very helpful - it pays attention to the the Biblical data, the dogmatics, the theology. ##

This teaching makes perfect sense in that universe. We now know, however, that our universe is vastly different and that if anything ascended through the clouds, it would definitely not run directly into heaven. The statement also implies that heaven is a physical place since physcal bodies can go there.

Did the Gospel writer witness these events? - most likely not since the writings were done many years later and we have no idea as to who the authors were. Was the author trying to indicate the special nature of these individuals? - definitely yes. Does the Church expect blind faith that this really happened without even acknowledging that there may be problems with that? - yes… And those are the kind of things I treat as errors and choose not to accept.

Is this one example a big deal? No, I’ll admit it is not. Is there a really big pile of similar not big deals? Yes - and that is what I have difficulties with.

Pat

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Tell me something, does the catholic church teach us that God sends the Holy Spirit/himself to provides Graces or shall we say promptings to all those who are not catholic to come to the Catholic Church/faith.

The reason I ask this is because the meaning of “outside the Church” and who it represents is can basically be deciphered if the first paragraph is true.

In Christ
Tim

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

martino:

If the Church could err, to whom shall we have recourse in our difficulties? To the Scriptures, say they. But what shall I do when it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies? I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scriptures or not; what Christian doesn’t know that it is the Word of Truth? What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture, and the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumberable and diverse and opposite on the same subject. Everybody takes his view, one this and another that, though out of all there is only one that is sound. How are we to know the good among so many bad?

For if the Church herself can err, who shall not err? and if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I take myself for instruction?

“Lord, to whom shall we go? For Thou hast the words of eternal life” ?​

It’s quite amazing how often one can discuss these things without even mentioning Jesus Christ.

A lot of people don’t find any need for infallibility - though, others do. And after all, it is a Person who saves, not a body on inerrantly perfect propositions. Abraham was called from Ur not by an edition of Denzinger’s “Enchiridion”, but by God.

IOW, neither the Church nor the Scriptures is ultimate - neither of them can be. ##

 

[flameburns623]

martino:

If the Church could err, to whom shall we have recourse in our difficulties? To the Scriptures, say they. But what shall I do when it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies? I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scriptures or not; what Christian doesn’t know that it is the Word of Truth? What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture, and the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumberable and diverse and opposite on the same subject. Everybody takes his view, one this and another that, though out of all there is only one that is sound. How are we to know the good among so many bad?

For if the Church herself can err, who shall not err? and if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I take myself for instruction?

No offense is intended by the following response. I am not seeking to be inflammatory but to point out to the one initiating this thread how deeply embedded in his own thinking are presuppositions which non-Catholics simply don’t share.

The problem with your whole premise is that you:

1. Presume that Roman Catholicism is Christian; many Evangelicals (not so commonly as in earlier times, admittedly), simply dismiss Romanism as an admixture of pagan deities with a mere patina–clumsily applied–of Christian language and imagery. Many–perceiving Romanism to be thoroughly diabolical–take for granted that you mistake your beliefs for Christianity by dint of being thoroughly under the influence of the demonic beings behind the images and persons you worship. (And no–such Evangelicals do NOT accept the distinctions which Catholics make between ‘latria’ and ‘dulia’, any more than they distinguish between ‘venial’ and ‘mortal’ sin). Don’t worry about how you’d dialogue with people who assume you to be ‘demonised’ before they ever meet you: they don’t care to dialogue but only to present you with the Gospel: if you don’t accept it and ‘come out of Babylon’ you never were one of God’s Elect to begin with and you aren’t worth bothering with.
2. Presume that even if it is Christian, it is synonymous with the Church you spoke of. Many Evangelicals believe that the **Christian **church, as opposed to the counterfeits and mimics thereof, will ever be impoverished, powerless, persecuted, and largely invisible as an institution. This is commonly known as the ‘trail of blood’ theory. It is not that individual Christians will be invisible–they’ll be the ones standing around with their heads hacked-off, literally or otherwise–but that the link between we know as the church will not be readily apparent. The church will ever be fleeing for it’s life into the refuge God prepares for it in every generation.
3. Presume that the ‘cathoic’ faith is synonymous with the Roman Catholic institution. Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, and Episcopalians have a slightly different, ‘continuing church’ theory which does NOT presuppose that the institutional body known as the Roman Catholic Church is or ever was synonymous with the Church, though they concur that many members of the one body were jointly members of the other at least at some junctures in history.

One ought not to presuppose the thesis one ought to prove.

 

[martino]

flameburns623:

No offense is intended by the following response. I am not seeking to be inflammatory but to point out to the one initiating this thread how deeply embedded in his own thinking are presuppositions which non-Catholics simply don’t share.

The problem with your whole premise is that you:

1. Presume that Roman Catholicism is Christian; many Evangelicals (not so commonly as in earlier times, admittedly), simply dismiss Romanism as an admixture of pagan deities with a mere patina–clumsily applied–of Christian language and imagery. Many–perceiving Romanism to be thoroughly diabolical–take for granted that you mistake your beliefs for Christianity by dint of being thoroughly under the influence of the demonic beings behind the images and persons you worship. (And no–such Evangelicals do NOT accept the distinctions which Catholics make between ‘latria’ and ‘dulia’, any more than they distinguish between ‘venial’ and ‘mortal’ sin). Don’t worry about how you’d dialogue with people who assume you to be ‘demonised’ before they ever meet you: they don’t care to dialogue but only to present you with the Gospel: if you don’t accept it and ‘come out of Babylon’ you never were one of God’s Elect to begin with and you aren’t worth bothering with.
2. Presume that even if it is Christian, it is synonymous with the Church you spoke of. Many Evangelicals believe that the **Christian **church, as opposed to the counterfeits and mimics thereof, will ever be impoverished, powerless, persecuted, and largely invisible as an institution. This is commonly known as the ‘trail of blood’ theory. It is not that individual Christians will be invisible–they’ll be the ones standing around with their heads hacked-off, literally or otherwise–but that the link between we know as the church will not be readily apparent. The church will ever be fleeing for it’s life into the refuge God prepares for it in every generation.
3. Presume that the ‘cathoic’ faith is synonymous with the Roman Catholic institution. Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, and Episcopalians have a slightly different, ‘continuing church’ theory which does NOT presuppose that the institutional body known as the Roman Catholic Church is or ever was synonymous with the Church, though they concur that many members of the one body were jointly members of the other at least at some junctures in history.

One ought not to presuppose the thesis one ought to prove.

Look just because a group of people insist on denying the obvious I am not going lower my standards for identifying the true Church, nor am I going to question whether or not a true Church exists. My response to all 3 of your paragraphs would be the exact same; I do not presume anything at all; the Church is the Church and there is you cant talk me out of it.

 

[martino]

martino:

Look just because a group of people insist on denying the obvious I am not going lower my standards for identifying the true Church, nor am I going to question whether or not a true Church exists. My response to all 3 of your paragraphs would be the exact same; I do not presume anything at all; the Church is the Church and there is you cant talk me out of it.

Gosh, I really dont like the tone of my last post so please disregard that one. I think what I was trying to get at is that of course I presume that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. If I didn’t believe that I wouldn’t be a Catholic. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with me writing in those terms mainly because this is a Catholic message board. I am glad to have non-Catholics involved because otherwise it would be a boring website! Although you are every bit as welcome here as I am, you still have to acknowledge that you are on a Catholic site. If I was on a Protestant or any other non-Catholic site I would not speak of the Catholic Church simply as “the Church” for the very reasons you gave. I understand fully that you do not accept the Church as such but some things just come with the territory. If you wish to debate “the Church” as the Church that Christ founded then let’s do that, otherwise, when you see “the Church” being referred to on this site it should be assumed by all that it is referring to the Catholic Church.

 

[Wormwood]

If you wish to debate “the Church” as the Church that Christ founded then let’s do that, otherwise, when you see “the Church” being referred to on this site it should be assumed by all that it is referring to the Catholic Church.

Ok, I’m game. To say the catholic church is the church founded by Jesus is a phallacy. If you recall, Jesus was killed by romans, not elected to be the messiah by the vatican council. Jesus’ church was not in a building, but in the country side. Jesus had a non political, non commercial message (render unto Cesar…). And most importantly Jesus converted people by his actions, not by forcing his beliefs on them. I know this is not something you will consider, but the people ( the regualr run of the mill foulable people) that recorded the stories in the bible (some hundreds of years after their occurance) could write that they were infallable and it might not be true. I could write a book that said I was infoulable, that doesn’t mean it’s true, but if you grew up hearing that your whole life, you would be much more likely to listen to my advice. Do you see what “the church” has to gain by adding a passage like that? It is the foulability of man that makes him think his knowledge is divine.

 

[MariaG]

John 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;…

1 Tim 3:15 tells us the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth

Mt 18:17 tells us if we have problems, take it to the church

The “book” that tells us the church will teach all truth is the Bible. That same book tells us the church will be one. I can show you through History that the only church around has been the Catholic church for the first 1000years of Christianity. If the Catholic Church is not the church Christ founded, where is that church? Show me historically where that church is. The Catholic Church has been the since Pentecost. If Christ founded a different church, where is it in history?

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ricatholic:

The church can and does err, it just sort of says it can’t really err, but just further develop.

Hence, we have concepts like EENS that said ,originally, that only catholics can be saved, and the newer developments that say in the end we are all Catholics even if we don’t want to be or even if we do not know we are Catholics.

The Church cannot and does not err on her official teachings on matters of faith and morals. The Church has never, ever taught that only Catholics can be saved. Sadly, this was once mistakenly thought to be Church teaching but never actually was. That’s why it behooves each Catholic to educate themselves about the faith.

As for knowing what scriptures to believe, ask yourself what Jesus would do and then toss the stuff that doesn’t show congruency or need.

Unfortunately this approach doesn’t work in practice. People end up drawing contradictory conclusions when it’s impossible for God to give contradictory interpretations of his word.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

martino:

Many people like to pick and choose which doctrines they accept and which ones they dont. I am always curious as to how they go about deciding these things. My guess is that they reject the ones that conflict with some aspect of their lifestyle, thus causing an inconvenience for them. Whatever the case, in rejecting certain doctrine they are actually saying that the Church is wrong on this or that point and correct on this or that, leaving themselves as the sole and infallible authority over Church doctrine. The irony is that in rejecting Church teaching they reject, by default, the infallibility of the Church, yet they have no problem giving themselves the gift of infallibility.

This is EXACTLY right! Individuals claim for themselves that which they expressly deny the pope.

 

[Wormwood]

If the Catholic Church is not the church Christ founded, where is that church? Show me historically where that church is. The Catholic Church has been the since Pentecost. If Christ founded a different church, where is it in history?

Someone is getting a little worked up here! Think about it from a logical historical perspective.Like I said, the Romans killed Jesus, they did not elect him martyr at the vatican council. It wasn’t for 400+ years that the romans finally decided to except christianity, and the emperor then used it as a means of controlling their largely christian population. With the decline of the Roman war machine, Rome used this as a means of maintaining control. The Romans appointed Rome the head of the christian church, NOT Jesus. Jesus wasn’t Catholic, he was Jewish, and he certainly wasn’t Roman.

 

[MariaG]

Worked up? I am just asking you a question. If the Catholic church is not the church Christ established, where is that church in History? I understand you don’t believe the Catholic church to be the church Christ established. Fine. Your turn then. Where is the church Christ established the first 100 years of Christianity? 400years? 500 years?

 

[Wormwood]

Your turn then. Where is the church Christ established the first 100 years of Christianity? 400years? 500 years?

This isn’t even a coherrant question…but I’ll guess you mean Where was the Church Christ established FOR the first 100 years of Christianity… and assuming that is your question I say What religion did Jesus himself practice when he was here? The religion of Jesus is everywhere, and if you ascribe belief to the OT you must admit it says the hebrews are God’s choosen people. Jesus was reforming Jewish beliefs, but he was still a jew. None of his apostles were romans, most died at the hands of romans. Then when Rome finally decides to accept christianity some 400 years later, suspiciously most popes are Roman (or italian depending on historical perspective) and I’d bet that most of the people at the councils to determine doctrine were also of Roman decent. This is not the first instance of Rome adopting someone else’s culture, then becoming the forerunners in that area. To give you some insight into ACTUAL romans of that time (400-500 C.E.) read Vegitius’ war manual on roman tactics. His principal concern is controling the mind of his soldiers. Romans of that time were at the tail end of a glorious empire that had once been the greatest in the world, and their manipulation and thirst for power were contributing factors to their decline. You can not say that Rome would have nothing to gain by seizing control of “the church”. In this way the pope resembles a neo cult of the emperor.

 

[SojournerOf78]

Where did you get this from? The Church CANNOT err. Christ is the head of the Church and its founder. The Church is Christ’s Church–the “Pillar and foundation of truth.” We are the Church–His Mystical Body–remember-- “His Mystical Body.”

Your understanding is flawed. Either you are inside the Church or outside. There is no “in-between.” And YOU KNOW IT.

Your contradicting what Jesus has commanded. Listen carefully and understand what Jesus said and instructed the apostles while He was to be taken up into heaven; "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." Mat 28:19-20)
–He instructed the Apostles to teach and guide them. The latter is an assurance that He will be with us until the end.

Pio

 

[SojournerOf78]

Where did you get this from? The Church CANNOT err. Christ is the head of the Church and its founder. The Church is Christ’s Church–the “Pillar and foundation of truth.” We are the Church–His Mystical Body–remember-- “His Mystical Body.”

Sorry about that last post, I guess I did it wrong!!

HLGomez, I am an enquirer into the Catholic church and have to seriously ask this as I am seeking for the truth. Ive only seen a couple quotes used to promote “The church cannot err” but they are usually quoting Jesus saying “He will lead you into all truth”, speaking of the Holy Spirit and “The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it”. I have to be honest that to me, this scriptures in no way come across as Jesus trying to imply that the church cannot err. And what do you define as the “church” in this statement, do you mean that 1) Any member of the church cannot err? or 2) Any member of the Clergy cannot err? or 3) When you say “The church” is that only referring to the Bishop of Rome?

Also, when did the inerrancy begin? Was it after the “Rock” statement to Peter or the “Keys of the kingdom”? Because if so then we have a problem, the scriptures record Peter erring after these statements were made. In fact, the Acts of the Apostles record a few “errs”.

Saying that “Christ is the head of the church and its founder” does not offer much help in this area either and in no way guarantees inerrancy of the church, who was the head of Israel, the temple and the Aaronic priesthood? Did they err? Who founded them?

Looking for some answers here…thanks.

 

[JGC]

Basically the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

Interestingly there is a debate about reception by the church as a whole - the sensus fidelum - e.g teaching on contraception is currently not followed by a significant part of the church. In some cases teachings may change or emphasis changed - e.g no salvation outside the church has gone from -non catholic? no salvation, to inclusiveness under certain circumstances to seperated brethern and other religions and people of good faith.

If you cannot accept a teaching then the catechism states your concience has the final word but this should be arrived at with good reason and after a lot of prayer!

Even if I didnt agree with a certain issue if someone asked I would give them church teaching. Unity is what Catholicism’s about!

JGC

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

JGC:

.

e.g no salvation outside the church has gone from -non catholic? no salvation, to inclusiveness under certain circumstances to seperated brethern and other religions and people of good faith.

I’m unclear on your understanding of this teaching. Do you believe that this teaching has changed?

If you cannot accept a teaching then the catechism states your concience has the final word but this should be arrived at with good reason and after a lot of prayer!

The CCC states that one’s own conscience can overrule Church teaching? Perhaps I’m not understanding you correctly. Could you please elaborate on this?

 

[SojournerOf78]

I am still wondering what the word church means in the phrase “the church cannot err”, I am assuming now from what I have been reading that when you say the church cannot err, you are speaking about the Bishop of Rome, that he cannot err.

 

[JGC]

Originally Posted by JGC
*.
Quote:
e.g no salvation outside the church has gone from -non catholic? no salvation, to inclusiveness under certain circumstances to seperated brethern and other religions and people of good faith.
I’m unclear on your understanding of this teaching. Do you believe that this teaching has changed?
Quote:
If you cannot accept a teaching then the catechism states your concience has the final word but this should be arrived at with good reason and after a lot of prayer!
The CCC states that one’s own conscience can overrule Church teaching? Perhaps I’m not understanding you correctly. Could you please elaborate on this?
The Church has always taught no salvation outside the church. Until reasonably recently, in practice, you would have priests & laity saying that unless you were visibly Roman Catholic, you were outside the church, i.e could not be saved. You also have the papal bull, Unam Sanctum 1302 - Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

However since Vatican II this has changed. The teaching no salvation outside the church remains, however this affirmation is not aimed at those, who through no fault of their own do not know Christ or his Church - Cathecism of the Catholic Church - taken from Lumen Gentium document of Vat II. Elsewhere the cathecism affirms those validly baptised are in a real way joined with the Catholic Church.

---

Cathecism of the Catholic Church - 1782 page 397 - Man has the right to act in concience and in freedom so as to personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his concience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his concience, especially in religious matters.

1790 page 397 -A human being must always obey the certain judgement of his concience.

I had better clarify ‘overrule’. As can be seen, concience is what ultimately decides actions, even if goes against church teaching. However I reiterate this, this should only happen in truly exceptional cicrumstances. As Catholic’s we are to submit to the church’s teaching if possible, even if we don’t ‘agree’ with it.

JGC