We don’t believe anything of the sort. You won’t find “Limbo” (of infants) mentioned in the modern Catechism (but you find it in the Baltimore Catechism). It was a theory, but was taught as the “common belief” (to quote the BC) for centuries.
*The infallibility of the Church on faith and moral is a dogma of faith, which must be believed (assented to). There would be no visible Church of Christ without it.Either the Catholic Church is infallible, or it isn’t. And by my saying the Church is infallible, I mean that its teachings are protected from error.
But if the Church is not infallible, then that means the Church’s own definition of infallibility could be… fallible.
Nevertheless, the Catholic Church could still be Christ’s original church. The Pope could still be the successor of Peter. The Church could still be guided by the Holy Spirit.
But maybe our understanding of infallibility has been too exaggerated over the years. We have very specific guidelines for how we are to know some teaching is actually, truly infallible. Sometimes, though, these guides have seemed to legalistic or too specific. How do we know the Pope will be protected from error when he addresses the entire Church in faith or morals, ex cathedra? How do we know a teaching is guaranteed true just because all or most of the bishops happen to be in agreement? Etc
Any serious thoughts?
EDIT: Sometimes I have been “tempted”to think like some Christians do: They may acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has guided the church through the ages; they may say God has had a role in the office of the papacy, in the great councils of the church, in the formation of the scriptures, etc. But sometimes I think, like they do, that there is no strict guarantee of absolute certainty on a matter of teaching.
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying – that makes a lot more sense than what I had previously understood. I find that sometimes its very easy to misunderstand what Catholics are saying; for the longest time I thought your teachings on communion meant that the atoms in the bread and wine were *physically * transmuted into flesh and blood.
That seems odd to me that you would say the Church was infallibly inspired when identifying Scripture but not afterward or on other teachings. On what basis do you make that assertion other than a gratuitous pick-and-choose? And I thought we already agreed passage of time is no limitation for the Holy Spirit.
Before this above verse whats interesting is the prior conversation with the Lord, in particular here…
He wasn’t justified until he went to Ananias heard the Good News, repented and was baptized.
That’s called *carnalism *(the idea that the bread/wine physically become the Body and Blood, but our senses are prevented from perceiving it). It was a Twelfth Century heresy among a small group of Spanish nus.Ofor the longest time I thought your teachings on communion meant that the atoms in the bread and wine were *physically * transmuted into flesh and blood.