You can't have it both ways.

[joe370]

Teachers are provided who teach from Scripture.

No…just one brother in Christ to another. Help me find said fallible teachers guided by the holy spirit to infallibly interpret infallible scripture?

I have found that praying and asking Jesus where to find anything do with His Word works very well. I look to Jesus.

As do I but you and I still disagree, doctrinally speaking.

The Holy Spirit leads us into understanding Scripture.

Okay, then the holy spirit is leading you in one direction and me in another. Who is guided by the HS to nudge us along and help you and me to merge and see eye to eye?

Remember, as a born again believer we are seeking to understand Scripture in order to grow as a disciple.

As are all Christians that share opposing beliefs.

When a teacher teaches it is incumbant on the recipient of that teaching to search the Scriptures to see if it is as they say it is, look up Berean in Acts for they were praised as being more noble for doing this.

I have done just that very thing to see if what you say is truth, and I disagree with you. By what authority can I insist that you are wrong? None that I am aware of, if the bible alone is the Christians final authority?

Scripture says that Jesus is the author and finisher of my faith, so I trust Him to lead and guide me successfully to Him.

Me to, to a degree. However, I believe that Jesus is still guiding His established church in a world of Christianity where there is so much confusion and doctrinal division, just as He did for the first 400 years of Christianity, and I believe that I can trust the teachings of Jesus, who entrusted said teachings to His church. Do you believe that about any church leadership?

Again, I look to Jesus and not to man for I will stand alone before Jesus when I have to give account. I consult man for counsel but ultimately it is on me but I am not alone for Jesus will not leave me or forsake me.

You look to a man, and that man is you and your interpretation of your bible as you are inspired, by Jesus to understand it - right? That is sort of the hallmark of sola scriptura. The bible as the Christians final authority, seen and understood through their myopic glasses, as opposed to any one church leadership, however, Dokimas, another SS advocate says that teachers in churches are necessary; is he wrong? He is if we are to to look to Jesus and not to man, but I don’t think that he is wrong.

As an RC I heard many teachings that were not official RCC teaching but they were given nonetheless. Some were even new age teaching. So while you think you are taught infallibly, in practice you may not. In fact, there are those RC theologians who teach things that are not approved.

If I thought that I was being fed doctrinal error by the CC I would not belong to the CC. Are you being taught error free doctrine by a church, or, are you your own church gleaning error free truth from your infallible scripture? I am asking with all sincerity.

 

[joe370]

Dokimas, you said:

Where does God reveal that the teachings you hold dear that aren’t found in Scripture are from Him?

Through His church according to scripture, via tradition, be it word of mouth or by letter. I have copied and pasted my last question, not to prove that I am right, but to discern the lie that I might be potentially embracing. I am merely attempting to stay ahead of the curve if at all possible.

Isn’t it through the teaching of the CC? Kind of self serving from my point of view, a very human trait as I well know through PERSONAL experience (one of my many faults).

Yes, in my opinion, it is through the CC, and some choose one of the PC’s as their channel for truth. It is not self serving if the CC is the church founded by God, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth. Jesus’ church is here to serve others. I could say the same about every PC, teaching the world as they see scripture through their myopic glasses, and interpreted in their minds, as truth, as the HS guides them into all truth, but that will get us nowhere fast.

I kindly ask again, with the pursuit of truth as my only endeavor: Paul was telling those early Christians to hold to traditions taught, not just in his written letters (what would be called the New Testament) - but also given orally. What were these, is the common question from SS advocates? How can they be known? Perhaps through the preservation of the church.

Or, they were eventually committed to scripture, ending the need to stand firm these traditions? If they were eventually committed to scripture thereby ending the need to hold fast to these traditions then where does Paul reveal this truth? I am told by SS advocates: if it’s not in the bible it’s not to be believed. As far as I can tell, Paul’s command to stand firm and hold to the traditions which those early Christians were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter, was never revoked due to the supposed fact that these oral traditions were all safely committed to scripture. If they were eventually committed to scripture then please identity these traditions that were eventually committed to scripture and the passages that support the supposed fact that the following command was to be rejected once those traditions were committed to scripture:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dok…

**I’m sure you think you stumped me. I really think you know the answer and the answer is NOT that SS must be untrue. **

Dok, my goal is not to stump you. Just looking for a direct answer and to verify what I believe to be truth, is in fact truth, and if someone such as yourself, can show me that I have deviated from truth, then I will not be too proud to say that I was wrong.

If I know the answer then please enlighten me as to what I supposedly know? I honestly can not understand why, if the SS advocate is right and the bible is all sufficient for deriving error free truth, then why are there still thousands upon thousands of sermons being preached and bible studies being led all over the world, if further explanation, elucidation, of the all sufficient bible, isn’t necessary? Again, no need for catholic teachers/pastors or protestant teachers/pastors if the bible is the Christians sole source of truth - I thought?

 

[joe370]

Dokimas, perhaps you could show me what I am missing regarding the following:

The following NT passages demonstrate that the New Testament authors** drew on oral Tradition ** as they expounded the Christian faith. How do you reconcile the following with the idea that we must find all of our doctrine in written Scripture? **The authors of the New Testament draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture. **In several instances, they explicitly cite oral Tradition to support Christian doctrine which violates sola scriptura. Not only does this observation undermine the practice of sola scriptura, but it lends positive support to the Catholic position of Scripture and Tradition as parallel conduits through which God brings us his revelation.

We find passages in the New Testament in which oral Tradition is cited in support of doctrine. For the apostles, oral Tradition was trustworthy when formulating and developing elements of the Christian faith:

Matthew 2:23

Scripture says that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after their sojourn in Egypt, “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matt. 2:23) - All scholars admit that the phrase “He shall be called a Nazarene” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet Matthew tells us that the Holy Family fulfilled this prophecy, which had been passed on “by the prophets.” Matthew is drawing on oral Tradition for this saying. If this is the case, it is significant that he places this prophecy on the same level as ones he attributes to specific authors of the Old Testament. This is an example of God’s own Word being passed on via oral Tradition and not through written Scripture.

Matthew 23:2

Just before launching into a blistering denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus delivers this command to the crowds: “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” (Matt. 23:2-3)

Although Jesus strongly indicts his opponents of hypocrisy for not following their own teaching, he nevertheless insists that the scribes and Pharisees hold a position of legitimate authority, which he characterizes as sitting “on Moses’ seat.” Jesus here draws on oral Tradition to uphold the legitimacy of this teaching office in Israel. The Catholic Church, in upholding the legitimacy of both Scripture and Tradition, follows the example of Jesus himself and certainly that is not a bad thing - right? This verse about Moses’ chair illuminates why we say that the successor of Peter, when he gives a solemn teaching for the whole Church, is said to speak ex cathedra or “from the chair.”

1 Corinthians 10:4

Paul shows how Christian sacraments—baptism and the Eucharist—were prefigured in the Old Testament. He treats baptism first: “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (vv. 1-2). Next he highlights the Eucharist, prefigured by the manna in the wilderness (John 6:26-40), and the water that God provided for Israel: “All drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4)

The Old Testament says nothing about any movement of the rock that Moses struck to provide water for the Israelites (Ex. 17:1-7, Num. 20:2-13), but in rabbinic Tradition the rock actually followed them on their journey through the wilderness.

Jude 9

Jude relates an altercation between Michael and Satan: “When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’” (Jude 9) This text provides another example of a New Testament author tapping oral Tradition to expound Christian doctrine. Jude speaks of the rebellious upstarts of his day, saying, “It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, ‘Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Here is a tradition, a prophetic revelation, which was passed on orally for millennia before being captured first in a non-inspired written document (1 Enoch) - and then in an inspired document (Jude). Did the writers of the New Testament ever regard oral tradition as divine revelation? This example more than any other shows that the answer to that is a resounding, Yes!

Paul taps into rabbinic tradition to supply the names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians who opposed Moses in Pharoah’s court. (2 Tim. 3:8) In the Old Testament, these individuals are anonymous. James tells us that because of Elijah’s prayer there was no rain in Israel for three years, but the Old Testament account of Elijah’s altercation with King Ahab says nothing of him praying.

The authors of the 4 gospels are also anonymous. It’s the second century tradition of the CC that puts a name to these books.

The teaching of the Bible and of the Church is that God’s Word comes to us both through the writings of the prophets and apostles and through the oral Traditions that they handed on, and these are preserved by the Church through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Why would the authors of the New Testament draw on oral Tradition in addition to Old Testament Scripture, if in fact they were sola scriptura advocates?

 

[gtrenewed]

Yes, there is a significant segment of the parishioners who are eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves.

You have accused me of judging and yet this sounds like you are judging the hearts of your fellow parishoners, slightly hypocritical?

What would you like the Bishop to do, burn them at the stake?

This is inflammatory rhetoric.

I just asked if a human final authority takes no action what good is it. If they allow vocal abortion advocates to share in communion are they not aiding in their sin. If they won’t let a remarried person to have communion why should a high profile politician who advocates abortion be allowed to have communion and even receive communion at a mass celebrated by the pope? I am not being hostile or anti-RCC, I am just asking why?

Yes. I wonder why you are pointing at the tares in the Catholic community?

This was in response to the post who said that 1/4 of evangelicals support abortion. Why can a RC post this but I can not reply?

 

[gtrenewed]

If I thought that I was being fed doctrinal error by the CC I would not belong to the CC. Are you being taught error free doctrine by a church, or, are you your own church gleaning error free truth from your infallible scripture? I am asking with all sincerity.

 

[gtrenewed]

You have freedom of religion, and you can believe whatever you like. I guess someone could eat their knife and fork also, and believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Unfortunately, believing these implements are Jesus does not make it so.

Very disrespectful to poke fun at our terminology of implements which is the bread and wine before receiving them by faith at which time they become the body and blood of Jesus.

 

[gtrenewed]

Gtrenewed, the Acts of the Apostles records that there were different truths being taught regarding keeping the Mosaic Law. One group represented by Judaizers taught that Gentile Christians must come to the Christian life through keeping the Mosaic Law; the second group represented by Paul taught that Gentile Christians did not need to keep the Mosaic Law. There was no Scripture regarding the truth of the issue. So they appealed to the authority of the Holy Spirit in council, and the Catholic Church has followed this model ever since.

You are not relaying the account correctly. Acts 15:24 “Since we heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling you souls,”

Fisrt, if this had been a church that Paul founded, he would have settled the dispute like is recorded in his other letters.

Since it was founded from Judea, and the Judaizers were from Judea, they had to go there for the answer because the Judaizers would not submit to Paul.

This action became Scripture so that it could be the example down through the ages.

How could the bible alone, back then, have resolved this dispute regarding the truth of the issue, considering the fact that scripture did not have the answer to this question?

Paul used the Scriptures back then to resolve the dispute that Jesus was the messiah to the Jews, see Acts 28:23 It was in their Scripture that the just shall live by faith. If the Judaizers would have submitted to Paul, he could have used their Scriptures to settle the dispute, see Hebrews for examples of ot scriptures.

My sister tells me that the apostles were guided into all truth, and therefore could settle the matter once and for all, and once they all passed away, the holy spirit left the church founded by Jesus, at which point the bible became the final authority for settling disputes. Do you agree with her?

Scripture contains all that is necessary to come to faith in Jesus and to live as a disciple. It is God’s Word and as such it carries God’s authority, for He says He watches over His Word to perform it. If the pope to Luther would have listened to Scripture the break probably would not have happened. Finally a pope did and a correction to errors was accomplished but it was too late to fix the break. The CCC says there were errors on both sides.

If two Christians feel strongly about a certain scripture and disagree and belong to the same denomination, they appeal to that groups elders. If not in the same denomination there should dialogue, each must rigorously seek God for the answer with a humble heart and if they still disagree then go their own ways if they choose. Jesus will sort it out at the resurrection, if not before.

That is what is happening here. We disagree, we dialogue, and we say Good Night each convinced they are correct but we agree that Jesus is God, He suffered and died for our sins, was resurrected, and sits at the Father’s right hand. The rest we will find out in heaven.

 

[joe370]

Gtrenewed , you said:

There hasn’t been any church that taught error free

So, in a nutshell, just fallible church leaders fallibly interpreting the infallible word of God?

What about the church to which the apostles belonged? Were the fallible, sinful apostles able to teach infallibly and interpret the infallible teachings of their brother apostles, who taught infallibly?

Could fallible men, who were not actual apostles of Jesus Christ, but disciples of one of the apostles, such as Luke, Mark, Barnabas, Timothy and Titus, teach infallibly and infallibly interpret Jesus’ infallible word?

 

[joe370]

Gtrenewed

, the Acts of the Apostles records that there were different truths being taught regarding keeping the Mosaic Law. One group represented by Judaizers taught that Gentile Christians must come to the Christian life through keeping the Mosaic Law; the second group represented by Paul taught that Gentile Christians did not need to keep the Mosaic Law. There was no Scripture regarding the truth of the issue. So they appealed to the authority of the Holy Spirit in council, and the Catholic Church has followed this model ever since.
You are not relaying the account correctly. Acts 15:24 “Since we heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling you souls,”

I am cool with your correction, but what I don’t get is: why should I consider your interpretation error free, if in fact no one can teach error free doctrine, and if I cannot view your interpretation as error free, then why should I listen you or anyone for that matter?

Fisrt, if this had been a church that Paul founded, he would have settled the dispute like is recorded in his other letters.

Okay…I’m listening attentively.

Since it was founded from Judea, and the Judaizers were from Judea, they had to go there for the answer because the Judaizers would not submit to Paul.

Either scripture was and is the Christians final authority or it was not and is not. Today, I am told, by people like yourself, that a Christian, be he/she a Jew or not, must take it to scripture alone because that is what they did from the very beginning. Paul should have handed them sacred scripture and told them to do as the Bereans did, which is to search for these truths in scripture, for themselves and come to their own conclusions, as opposed to relying on the decision of some church leadership, if in fact you are right? It doesn’t matter if a church was founded in Mexico or a country in Africa; we, as per the sola scriptura advocate, are to take our issue to the bible, not the church - right, so why didn’t Paul suggest the same thing? There are plenty of examples of Paul settling disputes for “Judaizers” without having to defer to the Christian Church in Judea.

I am trying to follow your logic but you are flip-flopping.

This action became Scripture so that it could be the example down through the ages.

Show me, in scripture where scripture reveals that this action became the example, down through the ages, as to how scripture would be adopted by all as the only way for resolving disputes? I am really trying to follow your logic, but if it isn’t in the bible it’s not to be believed, from a sola scriptura standpoint, and that is not in the bible.

Quote:
How could the bible alone, back then, have resolved this dispute regarding the truth of the issue, considering the fact that scripture did not have the answer to this question?

Paul used the Scriptures back then to resolve the dispute that Jesus was the messiah to the Jews, see Acts 28:23 It was in their Scripture that the just shall live by faith.

Okay, but that doesn’t answer my question regarding the dispute that Paul and the elders took to the church in Jerusalem, due to the fact that the answer could not be found in scripture. If anything, they bypassed scripture and drew a conclusion that was contrary to scripture:

Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Gen. 17:13

If the Judaizers would have submitted to Paul, he could have used their Scriptures to settle the dispute, see Hebrews for examples of ot scriptures.

That doesn’t make any sense. Paul often taught forcefully and enthusiastically, in spite of those who would not submit to him, and he admonished Jews and instructed Jews in lieu of taking the dispute to the church of Jerusalem. Paul, no doubt, did not know how to settle the matter, and those Judaizers made a compelling argument, no doubt, using scripture alone:

Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Gen. 17:13

 

[joe370]

Quote:
My sister tells me that the apostles were guided into all truth, and therefore could settle the matter once and for all, and once they all passed away, the holy spirit left the church founded by Jesus, at which point the bible became the final authority for settling disputes. Do you agree with her?
Scripture contains all that is necessary to come to faith in Jesus and to live as a disciple. It is God’s Word and as such it carries God’s authority, for He says He watches over His Word to perform it. If the pope to Luther would have listened to Scripture the break probably would not have happened. Finally a pope did and a correction to errors was accomplished but it was too late to fix the break. The CCC says there were errors on both sides.

Please answer the question? I always answer your question as best I can and as directly as I can. Thanks friend.

 

[PRmerger]

If I thought that I was being fed doctrinal error by the CC I would not belong to the CC. Are you being taught error free doctrine by a church, or, are you your own church gleaning error free truth from your infallible scripture? I am asking with all sincerity.

 

[StTommyMore]

joe370;7100446:

There hasn’t been any church that taught error free, including all my years in the RCC. At the local parish level, I have heard new age and other error filled homilies, there are certain RC churches that are very liberal and teach error. If you have not heard it then you are blessed but it exists in many places. That is why poor catechisis is such a problem that is being talked about.

Individual priests are not protected form error, but the Magisterium is. For you argument to apply, you need to give examples of official Catholic teaching that is in error.

 

[PRmerger]

Individual priests are not protected form error, but the Magisterium is. For you argument to apply, you need to give examples of official Catholic teaching that is in error.

Just so you know, the post you quoted was not by joe, but by gtrenewed.

 

[StTommyMore]

Just so you know, the post you quoted was not by joe, but by gtrenewed.

I think thar may have been to a technical Glitch…it has happened before

 

[joe370]

gtrenewed;7100529:

Individual priests are not protected form error, but the Magisterium is. For you argument to apply, you need to give examples of official Catholic teaching that is in error.

Sometimes I don’t make a clear break away from gtrenewed’s post and mine. We are of the same mind brother.

 

[joe370]

joe370;7100446:

That is quite a trenchant point, joe.

If, as nonCatholic Christians profess, an infallible church does not exist, then the logical conclusion is that their church is fallible.

And fallible, by definition, means: *** it’s going to be wrong.***

That is, each and every time a preacher is preaching his sermon, each congregant has to think, “Hmmm…is this one of the times when my preacher is being fallible? I know at some point* he’s going to be wrong *in his interpretation, so how do I know if it’s this time? And how do I know when he’s wrong, since I am fallible, too? Maybe I’m wrong about his being wrong. Because I’m going to be wrong too!”

Exactly! What’s the point of having the infallible word of God, if God did not leave the world with a means to infallibly interpret His infallible word, through the guidance of the HS of course! The bible is useless if we cannot discern the infallible truths found in it, and of course we can, through Jesus’ church. As a former protestant, this became painfully obvious. The next step was to find the historical church founded by Jesus, circa AD 33 in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, of course, as per scripture and history, built on Simon renamed Kepha, against which, Jesus’ worst enemy continually hammer away, but will never vanquish.

I have asked my non-Catholic friends why they believe that the bible calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth, which includes the bible for the bible is revealed truth through Jesus’ established church, but they just change the subject.

Sola scriptura is not workable. I think that JonNC’s version comes as close as it gets to a workable practice.

 

[guanophore]

I never said that - I said Scripture supports Scripture

The Bible comes from God through the first believers

Oh good! I am glad I misunderstood you. We are in agreement on this point, then.

You are very disrespectful

I am disrespectful because I think it is not reasonable to deny the facts of history?

I thought this forum was non-catholic religions. Why can’t we have a discourse here that presents a non-RCC viewpoint?

Yes, that is the point of the forum. But you can’t expect that no defense will be made against your viewpoint. CAF is not provided to you as a venue for evangelization. It is here to give “Catholic Answers”.

Why am I not entitled to read the posts? I am not judging anyone. I am just presenting my viewpoint.

You are entitled to read the posts. You presented your viewpoint, which was judgemental and erroneous.

For calling me a separated brethren, this is very disrespectful.

My beloved brother in Christ. You have been consuming a deficient diet. It would not be loving to confirm you in your error. Your lack of proper nutrition will make you spiritually sick, if it has not already. Your judgmental post above of another member, and also of myself, indicates that you are suffering under this diet you are on.

Sorry, protestant term for bread and wine prior to communion. You do have those.

Yes, we bring the fruit of the vine and the work of our hands (bread) to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I have never heard them called “implements” before. Can you give me a source for this term?

The bells are rung at the moment that the host and wine become Christ according to transubstatiation and the liturgy of the mass. At least when I was an altar boy in the old latin mass that is what it meant.

Ok. Good, we are in agreement on that point about the bells. Perhaps you can explain what " according to transubstantiation" means?

Again, I am not anti-catholic nor hostile, I am presenting my viewpoint on this sub-forum on non-catholic religions, in response to posts that I believe need a response.

I will accept that you don’t feel hostile, and that you don’t realize you are presenting an anti-Catholic viewpoint. You are part of a religious tradition that is, however, so when you present it, that is how it will come across.

 

[guanophore]

You have accused me of judging and yet this sounds like you are judging the hearts of your fellow parishoners, slightly hypocritical?

Actually, I don’t know anyone in my parish who practices contraception, abortion, and otherwise disobeys the Teachings of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church. I was responding to your observation that there are public figures who call themselves Catholic, and do such things. I am making a general statement that applies to myself as well as everyone else. If a person claims to be Catholic, and is willfully and actively disobedient to the TEachings, and presents oneself to receive the Eucharist, then such a one has not examined himself, and is receiving in an unworthy manner, eating and drinking condemnation upon himself. This is the Teaching of the Church. And no, the Church does not judge hearts, and neither do I. What part of that do you think is hypocritical?

This is inflammatory rhetoric.

Yes. Good catch! You didn’t answer my question, though. What would you like the Bishop to do about the Catholics who are receiving the Eucharist while they are in a state of mortal sin?

I just asked if a human final authority takes no action what good is it.

Oh. I misunderstood your question, in that case. Sorry. The authority of the Church does not come from a human, but from God.

If they allow vocal abortion advocates to share in communion are they not aiding in their sin.

If they do so knowingly, yes. HOwever, there is no way for the person distributing communion to know if the person presenting herself has been to confession, and been abosolved of their sins. That is why it falls to the person presenting themselves to examine their own heart.

If they won't let a remarried person to have communion why should a high profile politician who advocates abortion be allowed to have communion and even receive communion at a mass celebrated by the pope?

They should not. But again, in the situation you described, the person was asked directly and individually to refrain from presenting herself while she was in such a state. Now if an individual decides to add more disobedience to one’s other mortal sins, then the priest cannot necessarily stop her. It is possible, if the priest knows that the person is in a state of mortal sin, to protect that person from sacrilege by withholding the Eucharist, and this has been done. However, the minister of the Body and Blood must be privy to information that most Eucharistic Ministers do not.

. I am not being hostile or anti-RCC, I am just asking why?

Your question did not come across as hostile, and now that I have been made to understand that you don’t see the hostility you have embraced, I will be careful to point it out.

What you are doing, though, is finding fault with the way Catholics minister the Body and Blood during the Liturgy. I challenge you to consider on what grounds you have to challenge this. Who are you to judge another man’s servant?

And I also want you to answer the previous question. What would you like them to do? Instead of meeting privately with the person and asking them not to come forward, make a public scene?

If the priest made a public scene by refusing communion, would that make you realize the validity of the Church?

This was in response to the post who said that 1/4 of evangelicals support abortion. Why can a RC post this but I can not reply?

You can, of course. You seem to want the Church to do something about the unbelievers who pretend to be believers. You seem to want the tares pulled out. I can’t disagree, but Jesus seemed clear that this was beyond our purview.

 

[guanophore]

joe370;7100446:

There hasn’t been any church that taught error free, including all my years in the RCC. At the local parish level, I have heard new age and other error filled homilies, there are certain RC churches that are very liberal and teach error. If you have not heard it then you are blessed but it exists in many places. That is why poor catechisis is such a problem that is being talked about.

You are suffering from a misunderstanding here, gtren. It was not the Church that gave us all that poor catechesis, but false teachers (wolves among the sheep), the ignorant, the wayward, DEPARTING from the Teachings of the Church that were feeding us garbage. I had this same hangup too, until I studied the Teachings of the Church myself, and came to know that people in positions of authorithy and instruction were not following them.

Yes, there are error filled homilies, and RC communities that embrace liberalism and some pastors that teach error. However, this is not the same as the Church teaching error. She cannot teach error, because the HS prevents this. Individuals are only protected by this gift to the extent they remain in unity with her. When they depart from that unity,and begin to teach that which the Church does not, then they fall into error.

Yes, poor catechesis is a very serious problem. You can’t lay the sins of Judas, though, at the feet of Jesus. Jesus’ teaching was not wrong, just because Judas did not receive it.