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.
C

CatholicHere_Hi

Guest
I was reading a tract on Catholic Answers about the Church’s infallibilty, and now I’m beginning to question where exactly they get their absolute assurance of their dogmas from:

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.

If these teachings don’t come from a divine revelation by God, as the tract says…then how can anyone in the Church be assured their teachings are infallible and guided from error? It sounds like they are ASSUMING this is true rather than actually having this CONFIRMED by God. It sounds like they are assuming that just because they are successors to the apostles, means that they will automatically have every dogma be protected from error.

Surely they have something more tangible to rest their assurance on?

 
Last edited:
On the promise of Christ:

“The gates of hell will not prevail against [the Church]”

“Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven.”

See Matthew 16:18-20.

God will not bind error.
 
Last edited:
The Church itself is part of divine revelation.

Remember, Christ is a person who founded a community. The Church is in Him.

Christ Himself is the fullness of revelation. His community is part of that with scripture and Tradition. The Church is inseparably bound up with that.
 
CatholicHere_Hi said:
40.png
catholic1seeks:
See Matthew 16:18-20.
Click to expand...
joeybaggz said:
Also suggest John 14: 26
Click to expand...
Yes, but the bishops INTERPRETED these scriptures by means of study. Many people throughout history have interpreted the scriptures by means of study and got the scripture wrong.

There had to be some level of simply ‘knowing’ by divine guidance that this is true.
Click to expand...
How would one interpret John 14: 26 wrongly?
 
To me, it doesn’t seem like it needs much interpreting.

Christ bluntly says that the gates of hell/hades will not overcome the Church.

This means that his visible community of followers cannot be extinguished. And elsewhere we know why: Because Christ is ever present to us, especially with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

If the Church could get fundamental elements of the Faith wrong, the Church could be compromised to where it no longer is the Church.

Ignore the Protestant approach for a second, for Protestants too rely on what I’m about to say:

Imagine if the Main Universal Church could get the teachings on Christology and the Trinity wrong in those first ecumenical councils of the Church. What if the Church Fathers and Councils officially declared that Christ was only half-God ----- or merely a man! Would you agree that the Church would be seriously compromised?

In Matthew 16, Jesus asks the Apostles “Who do you say that I am?” And we see that it is the Holy Spirit that leads Peter to correctly declare who Jesus is: The Messiah, the Son of God. We NEED the Holy Spirit for the Church to get Christ right. We NEED authenticity of doctrine, or else we will say that Christ is this or that and get it wrong.

If Jesus Christ is truly God’s ultimate revelation, then surely he would provide away for us to maintain this revelation.
 
Last edited:
So not one of the bad popes said or wrote anything heretical
 
SacredHeartBassist said:
So not one of the bad popes said or wrote anything heretical
Click to expand...
As a private opinion, possibly, as a doctrine of the Church spoken as the supreme teacher of the Church, NO.
And I am assuming you mean “bad” pope as lousy leader, not antipope.
 
My point is, if it was so clear to where one didn’t need some supernatural guidance from God, then everyone would come to the conclusion that that verse would mean that Christ was talking about keep the Catholic Church from error. But alot of people didn’t get that interpretation.

That’s why I’m saying there would have to be some sort of divine ‘insight’ given to the bishops for them to have ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that this is an infallible dogma.
 
CatholicHere_Hi said:
My point is, if it was so clear to where one didn’t need some supernatural guidance from God, then everyone would come to the conclusion that that verse would mean that Christ was talking about keep the Catholic Church from error. But alot of people didn’t get that interpretation.

That’s why I’m saying there would have to be some sort of divine ‘insight’ given to the bishops for them to have ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE that this is an infallible dogma.
Click to expand...
Yea, have to agree. The entire Protestant Reformation and its results are part and parcel of that interpretation.
As to “divine insight” and ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE, I guess it is probably the same thing as when I pray, “come Holy Spirit” and somehow I understand and get things right. Doesn’t seem all that earth shaking to me, but maybe that is what you are saying also???
 
My point is, if it was so clear to where one didn’t need some supernatural guidance from God, then everyone would come to the conclusion that that verse would mean that Christ was talking about keep the Catholic Church from error. But alot of people didn’t get that interpretation.
Click to expand...
Then they are not consistent:
  1. They rely on the Catholic Church’s preservation of and determination of the New Testament canon, the alleged final and only infallible authority in their (Protestantism’s) perspective.
  2. They claim Jesus Christ as the Final Revelation of God, in whom Faith is necessary for eternal salvation, and yet they expect that the Church can get fundamental teachings wrong. Is the Eucharist the Real Presence, or is it not? Is praying to Mary and the saints OK, or is the worst kind of idolatry? Etc.
 
How can someone like Alexander vi not say anything heretical officially

Blows my mind
 
joeybaggz said:
As to “divine insight” and ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE, I guess it is probably the same thing as when I pray, “come Holy Spirit” and somehow I understand and get things right. Doesn’t seem all that earth shaking to me, but maybe that is what you are saying also???
Click to expand...
Ok. Now we’re starting to get somewhere 🙂

The tract made it sound like that the bishops came to this conclusion by pure intellectual study, which doesn’t seem like a very good indication that what hey learned was an infallible Truth. There would have to be some “illumination” of some sort to lead them to the right understanding of scripture.
 
And of course, let’s not forget how the early Church understood the centrality of the Church in conveying the truth of Christ.

Clement of Rome: Apostolic Succession gives us legitimate teachers and leaders, in the manner that God sent Christ, who sent the Apostles, who sent their successors, who in turn ordained other bishops (and deacons) until today.

Ignatius of Antioch: Union with the Bishop is necessary for communion with the Church and God.

Irenaeus and Tertullian: Apostolic Succession ensures correct teaching.

Cyprian of Carthage: Only those in union with the bishops, especially the Chair of Peter, can be said to be “in the church.”

The Church Fathers were essentially unanimous in equating the Visible Universal Church – the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church – as the living manifestation of the authentic Faith.
 
CatholicHere_Hi said:
40.png
catholic1seeks:
See Matthew 16:18-20.
Click to expand...
joeybaggz said:
Also suggest John 14: 26
Click to expand...
Yes, but the bishops INTERPRETED these scriptures by means of study. Many people throughout history have interpreted the scriptures by means of study and got the scripture wrong.

There had to be some level of simply ‘knowing’ by divine guidance that this is true.
Click to expand...
The Church itself is part of divine revelation.

Remember, Christ is a person who founded a community. The Church is in Him.

Christ Himself is the fullness of revelation. His community is part of that with scripture and Tradition. The Church is inseparably bound up with that.
 
SacredHeartBassist said:
How can someone like Alexander vi not say anything heretical officially

Blows my mind
Click to expand...
Well look, any pope could get up tomorrow morning and say that Jesus’ last name was Rodriguez and he played second base for the Jerusalem Jokers. Heretical yes, but I think he would be corrected in the long run by the Church. If you are saying is it possible for a pope to say something heretical, yea, sure. But that is a frivolous argument.
 
goout said:
The Church itself is part of divine revelation.

Remember, Christ is a person who founded a community. The Church is in Him.

Christ Himself is the fullness of revelation. His community is part of that with scripture and Tradition. The Church is inseparably bound up with that.
Click to expand...
Would that mean when the Church defines a dogma, they thinks as Christ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top