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.
I’m just in awe of how the holt spirit protects the church
 
SacredHeartBassist said:
I’m just in awe of how the holt spirit protects the church
Click to expand...
Absolutely have to agree. When you consider how weak, stupid, selfish, arrogant, dismissive, (I could go on and on here) that we human beings are, it is IMO a divine “miracle” that the church has been consistent in its understanding of the faith, given the frail moral, spiritual, and mental nature of the human being through these 2000 years.
 
Yea I think that’s fair to say.

Catholicism is not a religion solely of the book. It is bound up with the ecclesia, or Church. It’s personal and communitarian.
 
When I read the tract, this is the impression they seemed to have made of the early Bishops:

-Did alot of intellectual studying, declared somethin infallible, and then “hoped” that Christ guided them from error since “they are successors of the apostles”.

Instead of:

-They have been revealed a truth by the Holy Spirit that guided them to a correct study to ‘Know’ what needs to be declared an infallible dogma and God will protect them from error
 
Last edited:
The Church also admits it is sinful.
The issue is how do we know when authoritative statements do not come from men acting sinfully I guess.
 
Considering binding and loosing refers to excluding or admitting from the Christian community, which seems to have a divine seal of approval, the forgiveness of sins, and therefore salvation, we better hope that God is just as guiding and approving of lesser matters — matters of doctrine.

The forgiveness of sins suggested by the power of the keys and binding and loosing, while the most obvious sense, is also the most significant. So if we grant the Church has been given this authority, it’s much easier and much more natural to accept infallibility in matters of belief.
 
Last edited:
And yet “the Church”, which is also sinful, has also done incorrect things too so how can we be sure it cannot say incorrect things from time to time too?
 
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...
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
 
Last edited:
So anyone who interprets SS different from us is incorrect?
That does sound like a circular, self-justifying argument than can never be disproven.

Any child can argue for anything that way.
The earth is flat. Anyone who says otherwise is insane and cannot be trusted.
 
On matters of whether the Penguins will win a third Stanley Cup, whether sunblock 30 is better than sunblock 15, who’ll win the Oscar for Best Picture, etc., sure the church can say something incorrect. As to matters of faith and morals, guided by the Holy Spirit, not going to happen.
Now, it can be assumed that in a give instant, the church may take a position that is questionable, but in time, the truth will prevail as the HS guides the church.
This question has to be seen in a historical light. The Church always held that the Blessed Mother was assumed into heaven on her demise. It only took 1900 years for it to be formally declared. I’m sure if you were to go back through Church history, you would see doctrine developed and currently held, that has some questionable beginnings.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Apostolic Succession ensures correct teaching.
Click to expand...
Does it really?
What about arguments over Apostolic succession settled by force.
All we know is that we are on the side of the victors…who used the greatest force.
Of course the one’s who won were cast as the goodies, and those who lost were the baddies and heretics.

How would we ever know that was actually the case? We cannot.
Why is it the Catholic Church split in two in 1045 or so? One side calls itself Orthodox.
Doesn’t that mean we, who split with them, are unorthodox?

But no, we grew up in the “unorthodox” group, so we say we are “Catholic” and they are not catholic, nor orthodox. Likewise those who grow up Orthodox do likewise.

And plenty of religions survive long and well without the need to declare they possess all truth to the extent that their formal declarations are infallible.

The Catholic Church may be all these things, but how can it ever be proven?
It seems it cannot.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure whether or not to respond to you as if you are a Catholic or a skeptic.

Because faith in Christ and the truth of Christianity would not lead us to believe that the truth is equivalent to “the winner.”

Though, this may be a position for a skeptic or non-Christian.

Again, I’m not sure how to address apostolic succession. A skeptic wouldn’t really care about the concept, whereas in Christian history, it was perhaps THE earliest theory as to how to discern authentic Christian teaching — even before the Bible was compiled.

As for Catholics and Orthodox, we have the same practical information that gets us to Christ. Do we not celebrate the same sacraments and mysteries — the very realities that advance our walk with Christ? Nevertheless, the same arguments about apostolic succession, upon further digging, often centralize on the See of Rome as the universal example and source of the church’s unity and doctrine.
 
Last edited:
CatholicHere_Hi said:
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...
On another thread @De_Maria wrote:
The Church does not interpret Scripture. Catholic Doctrine is the basis of Scripture. Therefore, the Catholic Church Teaches her Doctrines through Scripture. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and selected the books of the Old Testament which would be included in the Bible.
Click to expand...
The apostles received the teaching directly from Jesus. Jesus promised that what He gave them would be protected by the Holy Spirit. Scripture faithfully records the teaching, which the Church held from the start.
 
Last edited:
The Church’s incorporation with Christ gives it a share in Christ’s authority, and at the same time all humans are sinners.
Christ has robbed sin of it’s power even though we do it.
 
Because the concept of infallibility isn’t about everything that the Popes do/say. When teaching on doctrine and speaking “ex cathedra” the message is infallible. Not everything the Pope says has equal value and not every single thing he says is infallible.
 
catholic1seeks said:
Because faith in Christ and the truth of Christianity would not lead us to believe that the truth is equivalent to “the winner.”

Though, this may be a position for a skeptic or non-Christian.
Click to expand...
The question for this thread is “who confirmed”.

As a sincere Catholic trying to answer that question for 45 years I have found no convincing answer. It appears unanswerable because any attempt to do so is inevitably circular in logic or unavoidably prudential/subjective/biased. Objectivity is impossible it seems.
Does it matter? It is what our Church teaches regardless.
 
Last edited:
joeybaggz said:
This question has to be seen in a historical light. The Church always held that the Blessed Mother was assumed into heaven on her demise. It only took 1900 years for it to be formally declared. I’m sure if you were to go back through Church history, you would see doctrine developed and currently held, that has some questionable beginnings.
Click to expand...
This isn’t the question posed.
The issue seems to be who/what infallibly confirms that alleged infallibility is infallible.
Any attempt to do so appears to involve and endless regression of appeals to former infallibility which again isn’t able to be objectively confirmed.

Sure, who was infallible (and who wasn’t infallible) will no doubt be confirmed at the end of the world or after death. That hardly assists the living. 2000 years doesn’t prove anything in this regard…especially if dissenters are just kicked out of this “one true freight train” so culture matches claims.

But why does it matter is the real issue. Why does it matter.
Many mainstream religions endure and thrive and grow goodness and right living without the need for such an unprovable proposition. Some are much older than Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, God doesn’t need to play the infallibility card to protect and grow a sinful religion that he backs.
As many other religions such as Judaism, Buddhism and Eastern Orthodox demonstrate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top