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

[BlackFriar]

???
A tad too strange a response for me sorry.
When you have something coherent to say do come back.

 

[Benadam]

It’s a matter of faith. Faith that Jesus is God. Then it is reasonable to assume that if God came and taught infallible truth that it would accomplish God’s purpose and not corrupt. Are there any Churches that claim, with any credible evidence, that the truth belongs to them? Very politically incorrect these days. How arrogant! I think there are subtle behaviors that a Church would exhibit if the truth belonged to them. Other than that we have it on faith that confirmation is coming.

 

[Vico]

???
A tad too strange a response for me sorry.
When you have something coherent to say do come back.

You said “I don’t object to it. I have never seen a credible demonstration that the modern Catholic version is what Jesus actually said in the NT”. I give the meaning of creditable “that can be believed; believable; reliable”. So you say then that you believe in the unbelievable or that you do not object to the unbelievable?

 

[neophyte]

how can anyone in the Church be assured their teachings are infallible and guided from error?

Why I believe in Apostolic Succession Apologetics

(Sorry for the obnoxious length of this) Authority is central to all other issues. Even when we, as reasonable men with our wills fully desiring to know God’s truth and who have turned our lives over to Jesus’ care, study scripture as well as we are able, we come to mutually exclusive conclusions about what it means. Because of the effects of original sin, our wills are weakened and our intellects are darkened. We are easily deceiv…

 

[Todd_Easton]

The apostles and elders (bishops) regarded their conciliar decision on a matter of faith as also being the decision of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15:28)

 

[PJM]

From the tract:

fallibility is not sinlessness. It is not divine inspiration. It is not a special message from God. It is not an illumination of the mind. It is not a special source of information.

The infallibility of the Church is seen best in the infallibility of the bishops. They are, in the fullest sense, the successors of the apostles. When they teach a truth so widely that it can be called the teaching of the episcopate of the Catholic Church, that teaching is true. God’s power keeps it from being wrong.

Its NOT “the episcopate” alone that is the FACTOR; it Is the “Ordinary Magisterium” this is made up of the Bishops in communion {agreement} with ROME {when Rome adheres to the Ordinary Magisterium & Sacred Tradition} and the Pope.

PJM

 

[goout]

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?

That’s the heart of Christianity right there. Everything is summed up in Christ.
The Church’s integrity is incorporated with Christ. The proving of the Church’s integrity (including authority) is Christ himself.

 

[BlackFriar]

Your English or grammer hermeneutic skills seem quite poor.

I attached the adverb of “credible” to the verb “to demonstrate”.

Infallibility cannot be “credibly demonstrated”.
I do not believe in any demonstrations that Papal infallibility is proven true.

Noone has credibly demonstrated that Christ said any such thing - no matter how desperately some of us want that to be true.

“Analyse that” as they say in the movie.

But really, this is descending into pedantic semantics or asserted idealised tautologies/truisms as regularly seems to happen with your good self (eg all nephews have uncles).
So God Bless and good luck on this path.

 

[BlackFriar]

While we must do what our united leaders tell us, how do we actually know for sure the HS was in fact truly inspiring what they said if we think the HS is saying otherwise?

Its a great technique for inspiring obedience from the gullible isn’t it.
The stuff of communes and brain-washing.

Of course we are bound to follow our leaders, but believing what they say is etched in natural law is another matter.

 

[Vico]

While we must do what our united leaders tell us, how do we actually know for sure the HS was in fact truly inspiring what they said if we think the HS is saying otherwise?

Its a great technique for inspiring obedience from the gullible isn’t it.
The stuff of communes and brain-washing.

Of course we are bound to follow our leaders, but believing what they say is etched in natural law is another matter.

Oxford Dictionary: belief, noun: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

 

[BlackFriar]

Sorry, I don’t accept the definitions of colloquial modern language by a secular organisation when it comes to defining the more ancient theological dictionary of the Church which, in English, is transliterating ancient Latin words with a completely different world view.

I am sure you would not accept the Oxford’s definition of “contracepting” (a merely science/physical based view) nor of “to exist” (based on perceived accidents not substance). The latter of course denies transubstantiation because this view would say bread still remains because it looks like bread, tastes like bread and gets mouldly like untransubstantiated bread. Therefore the consecrated element still exists as bread.

In any case intellectual aspects of belief, modern or ancient, cannot be commanded.
You confuse intellectual “assent” with volitional “consent”.
“Acceptance”, in the way you have used it, is consent, not assent.

The issue of this thread is one of objectivity, therefore of intellectual “assent”.
My mind does not assent because the evidence is not “acceptable” (credible) in that sense.
i.e. it is unable to assent to the content as objectively true, even though my will at a general level likely “consents” to act as if it is (in the absence of certain proof to the contrary).

In actual concrete cases it may not (eg is all use of the pill by my wife denied by the Church’s teaching).

This is all fairly intuitively obvious but given, from previous experience, you may have difficulty with the vagaries of everyday language the above analysis may be helpful for you.

 

[joeybaggz]

Oxford Dictionary: belief, noun: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Vico (and the other posters from above). This argument BF proposes concerning the indeterminate nature of the infallibility of the Magisterium smacks of a more sophisticated version of the argument of the atheist. The atheist who does not want to be ruled by a Divine Commandment, say the one concerning adultery, simply manufactures an intellectual end-run. There is no God, therefore those “commandments” are merely a figment of the imagination of deluded men. Therefore I can canoodle with my neighbor’s wife. In BF’s instance, although I am making a personal judgment here, it seems that " I don’t want to follow the teaching of the RCC on certain moral matters (pick any one here) therefore I can attack the veracity of the Church teaching by claiming that the doctrine of infallibility is defunct because no one can point to some distinct “proof” of its validity. Therefore I can make up my own morality. I am not saying that is what BF is doing, but it smacks of it to me. From a matter of faith, it is a dead end discussion.
I do admire BF’s logical presentation of his stance. The only thing that jerked my chain is his rather arrogant statement that your English or grammer hermeneutic skills seem quite poor. Someone might want to learn how to spell grammar before making such a statement, eh?

Edited to say. When I said it was a dead end discussion, my meaning was continuing a debate with BF is a foolish proposition because BF is not going to change his stance, and posters who relate to the concept of the infallibility of the Magisterium from a matter of faith and not proof, aren’t going to change their stance. No insult was meant if any was taken. Apologies.

 

[Vico]

…

The thread is “Who confirmed the teaching that the Catholic Church will always be protected from error in its dogmas?”

This is detailed by the Catholic Church in Chapter 4 from Vatican One.

• Chapter 1 On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter
• Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
• Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff
• Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman pontiff

Note the inclusion of Matthew 16:18. Matthew 16

17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

http://www.intratext.com/x/eng0063.htm

 

[BlackFriar]

More of the same unhelpful use of Scripture that doesn’t actually say what you want it to say.

Sure, with extensive backward somersaults you could get the unlikely interpretation that you want out of it…as can others get an interpretation that is more natural and contrary to yours.

THE issue though is who is the infallible interpreter re Scriptural quotes allegedly proving infallibility?

This approach seems to go nowhere fertile.

Do you really think the topic is “who said…”.
Surely you understand the topic is more likely “how do we know that the claim of being free from error is itself actually free from error?”

The short answer is we never can know in this life, only believe.

 

[BlackFriar]

Its just fairly basic logic my friend and an objective exegesis of actual Scriptural texts not blinkered by present day allegedly dogmatic needs which fairly clearly turns exegesis into eisegesis.

By all means reject the fairly obvious scholarly principles enunciated for emotional reasons such as undue “smacking”, fear of atheism or even a single letter typo if that is the more reasonable an approach for you.

And for all this, no comment on the actual topic of this thread.

 

[Brendan_64]

So not one of the bad popes said or wrote anything heretical

That is possible, but something does not become Church teaching simply because a pope expresses his view. Popes are human, they can get things wrong.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church from declaring and therefore binding upon the faithful, incorrect doctrines. The infallibility of the Pope’s office exists to protect the Church from error (including erroneous views individual popes may have had).

 

[Vico]

Do you really think the topic is “who said…”.

It is, as posted, who confirmed the teaching.

 

[BlackFriar]

If you take people and their deceptively simplistic opening words at face value I suggest you are missing out on perhaps 70% of what is really going on in their hearts and minds.

The poster wants to understand how we know with reasonable certainty that God backs what Man says:

It sounds like they are ASSUMING this is true rather than actually having this CONFIRMED by God.

Quoting a Council re its statements on infallibility doesn’t seem to advance that concern much.
How do we know the Council speaks for God re the truth of infallibility?

Given that other religions thrive and survive without such “protection” it doesn’t seem intrinsic to a religion that it is infallible in its dogma. All that really means is that anyone who disagrees gets kicked out until there is no one left who disagrees. Joeyb’s post above is a good example of how this discrediting antibody works.
Its just a subtle form of intellectual discipline imposed than assent of individual minds gladly given.

But that isn’t really infallibility is it - even if that form of “binding” might look the same.

 

[Vico]

If you take people and their deceptively simplistic opening words at face value I suggest you are missing out on perhaps 70% of what is really going on in their hearts and minds.

The poster wants to understand how we know with reasonable certainty that God backs what Man says:

It sounds like they are ASSUMING this is true rather than actually having this CONFIRMED by God.

One must use the words presented, and if there is an ambiguity, inquire.
We know because of the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church has received.

 

[BlackFriar]

I wouldn’t give up your day job to get involved in social work or any form of counselling.

We know because of the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit that the Church has received.

So how do we know for certain the relevant Scriptural texts are to be interpreted in such a way as to mean “HS guidance” = Papal infallibility…which is quite the jump?

Afterall, our Eastern Orthodox brothers and Protestant scriptural scholars are surely as “objective” and scholarly as we are in interpreting Scripture…yet they, strangely, don’t see it as an obvious interpretation of the text.

By all means say they are biased.
But then how do we escape the same charge - its what largely caused the 1045 Schism.

Who is the neutral arbiter?
The Holy Spirit?
Well who is truly listening or speaking for the HS is a very moveable feast in my experience.
And in any case, it just returns us to the poster’s original question. So circular reasoning it seems.

And on and on we go in an infinite regression of appeal to an infallible authority that cannot be demonstrated with any great certainty.