Who confirmed the teaching that the Catholic Church will always be protected from error in its dogmas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicHere_Hi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In that it is made up of sinners, like all other earthly institutions. That’s why it has supernatural protection — not because the Pope and bishops are super special, but because without that they would likely have screwed everything up already.
 
Yes the Catholic Church is both holy and sinful.
That is not a hyperbole, its accepted teaching.

I would be interested if you have any Magisterial statements that clearly deny this?
 
CatholicHere_Hi said:
…

Surely they have something more tangible to rest their assurance on?
…
Click to expand...
From CAF:
The Spirit of truth enables her to do this: “When the Paraclete comes, whom I shall send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. And you shall give testimony because you are with me from the beginning” (John 15:26.)

The continuous presence of Christ keeps his Church from all error: “Going, therefore, teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 19:20).

Certainly, God could not command, under pain of eternal damnation, the acceptance of truth on fallible human authority. He could not say of truth taught by man unaided, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16) Yet that is what he said about his Church’s teaching.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
And nothing there is a promise there can be no error in its teaching of things Jesus never said, did or commanded.
And how would we know when it is the Holy Spirit speaking and when fallible man is speaking.
Simply because the speaker says so?
 
BlackFriar said:
And nothing there is a promise there can be no error in its teaching of things Jesus never said, did or commanded.
And how would we know when it is the Holy Spirit speaking and when fallible man is speaking.
Simply because the speaker says so?
Click to expand...
Matthew 18:18
 
You said “sinful religion”. That’s why I asked for a clarificatin
 
Why do you believe the verb to bind or loose is the same as to tell it absolutely true with no error at all?
 
Would you agree that it comes down to whether or not Jesus Christ is the Incarnate Son of God who is the final Revelation of God’s truth?
 
When you can wheel one in who would agree with you we can take this further.
If they cannot accept the primacy of the Pope I am not sure how you can get far with his charism of infallibility.
 
Oh, as in, you don’t think Jesus is God’s final revelation, or you don’t think it’s the fundamental issue?
 
They don’t accept papal infallibility, but they still believe in the [their] Church’s infallibility.
 
Last edited:
But you are right that papal primacy implies papal infallibility, IF indeed the Church is infallible.
 
BlackFriar said:
Why do you believe the verb to bind or loose is the same as to tell it absolutely true with no error at all?
Click to expand...
Certainty of faith and morals is necessary to be able to determine what to bind.
 
Last edited:
How so???
The Church has been binding and loosing on changeable matters forrcenturies.

Its clearly a disciplinary authority prima facie and some complicated backward somersaults are necessary to even suggest it refers to determining absolute doctrinal truth. Why would one want to even try to take that bridge too far…unless of course one had a fairly recent unprovable ideological reason for doing so…like pretending Papal or Conciliar infallibility was willed by Christ himself ab initio 🤣😂🤣

Funny how equally intelligent and unbiased Scripture Scholars in other Churches do not see the text objectively reading that way. Who is to say which Church is correctly interpreting your text… oh yes, the infallible one!
That little black spot of circular reasoning just won’t wash out will it.
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
How so???
The Church has been binding and losing on changeable matters for centuries.

Its clearly a disciplinary authority prima facie and some complicated backward somersaults are necessary to even suggest it refers to determining absolute doctrinal truth. Why would one want to even try to take that bridge too far…unless of course one had a fairly recent unprovable ideological reason for doing so…like pretending Papal of Conciliar infallibility was willed by Christ himself ab initio 🤣😂🤣

Funny how equally intelligent and unbiased Scripture Scholars in other Churches do not see the text objectively reading that way. Who is to say which Church is correctly interpreting your text… oh yes, the infallible one!
That little black spot of circular reasoning just won’t wash out will it.
Click to expand...
Not funny at all. Many object to the Power of the Keys.
 
I don’t object to it.
But I have never seen a credible demonstration that the modern Catholic version is what Jesus actually said in the NT. And where is the infallible authority to settle the correct interpretation?

I have never been able to find one…just say’in.

.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top