To Protestants/fallen away Catholics; the Church cannot err!


#1

If the Church could err, to whom shall we have recourse in our difficulties? To the Scriptures, say they. But what shall I do when it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies? I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scriptures or not; what Christian doesn’t know that it is the Word of Truth? What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture, and the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumberable and diverse and opposite on the same subject. Everybody takes his view, one this and another that, though out of all there is only one that is sound. How are we to know the good among so many bad?

For if the Church herself can err, who shall not err? and if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I take myself for instruction?


#2

The church can and does err, it just sort of says it can’t really err, but just further develop.

Hence, we have concepts like EENS that said ,originally, that only catholics can be saved, and the newer developments that say in the end we are all Catholics even if we don’t want to be or even if we do not know we are Catholics.

As for knowing what scriptures to believe, ask yourself what Jesus would do and then toss the stuff that doesn’t show congruency or need.

Peace


#3

[quote=ricatholic]The church can and does err, it just sort of says it can’t really err, but just further develop.

Hence, we have concepts like EENS that said ,originally, that only catholics can be saved, and the newer developments that say in the end we are all Catholics even if we don’t want to be or even if we do not know we are Catholics.

As for knowing what scriptures to believe, ask yourself what Jesus would do and then toss the stuff that doesn’t show congruency or need.

Peace
[/quote]

Is your answer to the question seriously to simply ask myself what Jesus would do? And how am I to decide what is congruent and what is not? This does nothing but add to the confusion that is already out there. What is congruent to you may not be to the next person, which only creates disunity. Im sorry but your answer does not suffice.


#4

[quote=ricatholic]The church can and does err, it just sort of says it can’t really err, but just further develop.

Hence, we have concepts like EENS that said ,originally, that only catholics can be saved, and the newer developments that say in the end we are all Catholics even if we don’t want to be or even if we do not know we are Catholics.

As for knowing what scriptures to believe, ask yourself what Jesus would do and then toss the stuff that doesn’t show congruency or need.

Peace
[/quote]

The part where you said that originally, that only catholics can be saved, I believe you have that wrong. The truth is that you can only be saved through the Church. What hasn’t changed but now been explained more fully is that you are still saved through the Church. Those who find themselves outside the church and are validly baptised are baptised into “The church”. They are still saved through the Church yet may not yet have all truth. There is one baptism for all.

The Holy Spirit does not err. Jesus told the Church, that she would be led to all truth through the Holy Spirit.

God bless you on your journey.


#5

The church can and does err

, it just sort of says it can’t really err, but just further develop.

Where did you get this from? The Church CANNOT err. Christ is the head of the Church and its founder. The Church is Christ’s Church–the “Pillar and foundation of truth.” We are the Church–His Mystical Body–remember-- “His Mystical Body.”

that only catholics can be saved, and the newer developments that say in the end we are all Catholics even if we don’t want to be or even if we do not know we are Catholics.

Your understanding is flawed. Either you are inside the Church or outside. There is no “in-between.” And YOU KNOW IT.

As for knowing what scriptures to believe, ask yourself what Jesus would do and then toss the stuff that doesn’t show congruency or need.

Your contradicting what Jesus has commanded. Listen carefully and understand what Jesus said and instructed the apostles while He was to be taken up into heaven; “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Mat 28:19-20)
–He instructed the Apostles to teach and guide them. The latter is an assurance that He will be with us until the end.

Pio
*


#6

[quote=martino]If the Church could err, to whom shall we have recourse in our difficulties? To the Scriptures, say they. But what shall I do when it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies? I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scriptures or not; what Christian doesn’t know that it is the Word of Truth? What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture, and the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumberable and diverse and opposite on the same subject. Everybody takes his view, one this and another that, though out of all there is only one that is sound. How are we to know the good among so many bad?

For if the Church herself can err, who shall not err? and if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I take myself for instruction?
[/quote]

to say the Church can err is an oxymoron… Now if your speaking of Other than the Catholic Church you may have a case… :cool:


#7

[quote=space ghost]to say the Church can err is an oxymoron… Now if your speaking of Other than the Catholic Church you may have a case… :cool:
[/quote]

I hope you realized that I was trying to say that the Church cannot err.


#8

[quote=hlgomez]

Your understanding is flawed. Either you are inside the Church or outside. There is no “in-between.” And YOU KNOW IT

[/quote]

Sorry,perhaps I condensed the concepts of invincible ignorance and baptism of desire down a little too tightly. However, I would suggest that you consider the exclusivity of the original EENS documents and how they have grown to encompass more people in later encyclicals before you shout at me.

Peace


#9

[quote=hlgomez]*…*Either you are inside the Church or outside. There is no "in-between…

[/quote]

This statement is subjective. What does it mean to be inside or outside the Church?

The Catholic Church has never deemed anyone as being in hell. We can’t say that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are damned because they are outside the Church that Christ established for us (Catholicism).

I’ll concede the point that there are no Hindu saints (for example) as determined by the Holy See.:wink:


#10

Many people like to pick and choose which doctrines they accept and which ones they dont. I am always curious as to how they go about deciding these things. My guess is that they reject the ones that conflict with some aspect of their lifestyle, thus causing an inconvenience for them. Whatever the case, in rejecting certain doctrine they are actually saying that the Church is wrong on this or that point and correct on this or that, leaving themselves as the sole and infallible authority over Church doctrine. The irony is that in rejecting Church teaching they reject, by default, the infallibility of the Church, yet they have no problem giving themselves the gift of infallibility. :confused:


#11

[quote=martino]Many people like to pick and choose which doctrines they accept and which ones they dont. I am always curious as to how they go about deciding these things. My guess is that they reject the ones that conflict with some aspect of their lifestyle, thus causing an inconvenience for them. Whatever the case, in rejecting certain doctrine they are actually saying that the Church is wrong on this or that point and correct on this or that, leaving themselves as the sole and infallible authority over Church doctrine…
[/quote]

A) Some people don’t understand the Catholic faith and leave in frustration more than in rebellion.

B) Some people were born Protestant and are faithful Christians. In spite of their errors, they are following God as they know Him.

C) Some people pick and chose what they want to believe like you mentioned above and either leave the Catholic faith or stay in the Church but don’t follow its teachings.

D) Some people were born Protestant and refuse to acknowledge that Catholicism is true because they can’t get past the “Babylon Whore” myth.


#12

[quote=Stylteralmaldo]A) Some people don’t understand the Catholic faith and leave in frustration more than in rebellion.

B) Some people were born Protestant and are faithful Christians. In spite of their errors, they are following God as they know Him.

C) Some people pick and chose what they want to believe like you mentioned above and either leave the Catholic faith or stay in the Church but don’t follow its teachings.

D) Some people were born Protestant and refuse to acknowledge that Catholicism is true because they can’t get past the “Babylon Whore” myth.
[/quote]

I have no problem with all that you mentioned above, and it’s not so much why people choose not to follow the Church that I am interested in, but once they leave, how do they go about picking and choosing? If they would admit that they are not infallible then what are they left with is a fallible collection of doctrines based on fallible interpretations of the Scriptures.


#13

[quote=martino]I hope you realized that I was trying to say that the Church cannot err.
[/quote]

I think it would be good to define what we mean by err…

I would call the Inquisition erring. I would call burning and censoring those who agreed with Galileo and Copernicus some serious erring.

I would say that the priest who told my seventh grade class that if we missed mass on Sunday we would go straight to hell if we happened to die before confessing was doing some erring.

On a little more topical note, I call not educating Catholics as to the true nature of the Gospels, erring. How many Catholics understand the various literary forms in the Gospels and the O.T., the origins and histories of the copies we use?

I call having a totally male dominant organization which treats women as second class beings a serious error.

I realize that these are all different error genres and most people here would consider only dogmatic errors but I’m not sure that is the way to look at it.

Pat


#14

[quote=patg]I think it would be good to define what we mean by err…

I would call the Inquisition erring. I would call burning and censoring those who agreed with Galileo and Copernicus some serious erring.

I would say that the priest who told my seventh grade class that if we missed mass on Sunday we would go straight to hell if we happened to die before confessing was doing some erring.

On a little more topical note, I call not educating Catholics as to the true nature of the Gospels, erring. How many Catholics understand the various literary forms in the Gospels and the O.T., the origins and histories of the copies we use?

I call having a totally male dominant organization which treats women as second class beings a serious error.

I realize that these are all different error genres and most people here would consider only dogmatic errors but I’m not sure that is the way to look at it.

Pat
[/quote]

Pat, I think you forgot to read the original post, that should clear up for you what I meant by “erring”. I was talking about matters of faith and morals. Please dont mistake me for saying that I dont believe anyone in the Church can do wrong. I may be a fool but I am not that much a fool! I am talking about understanding the Scriptures and the conclusions to be drawn from it.

Whoever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficult a way, says that he wishes us to perish. Whoever says that he has put us aboard the ship at the mercy of wind and tide, without a skillful pilot able to properly use his compass and chart, says that the Savior is wanting in foresight. Whoever says that this good Father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says that he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance. Whoever has heard of a school where everybody taught and nobody was a student?- that would be the Christian commonwealth if the Church can err.


#15

[quote=ricatholic]The church can and does err, it just sort of says it can’t really err, but just further develop.

[/quote]

:eek: say WHAT?

The Church maybe can err in her actions, but in keeping with the original topic,

SHE CANNOT ERR IN TEACHING, interpreting and keeping God’s laws… “No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret [God’s] laws.”


#16

[quote=ricatholic]Sorry,perhaps I condensed the concepts of invincible ignorance and baptism of desire down a little too tightly. However, I would suggest that you consider the exclusivity of the original EENS documents and how they have grown to encompass more people in later encyclicals before you shout at me.

Peace
[/quote]

I agree with you and I know how it feels to go through an inquisition by my own people.

Hugs.


#17

[quote=mrS4ntA]:eek: say WHAT?

The Church maybe can err in her actions, but in keeping with the original topic,

SHE CANNOT ERR IN TEACHING, interpreting and keeping God’s laws… “No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret [God’s] laws.”
[/quote]

Except when the Pope taught it was ok to enslave the Native Americans that resisted Christianity. Or when charging interest on a loan ceased to be a mortal sin. Or when the Eastern Orthodox are now no longer damned.

Sigh.


#18

[quote=Christopher]Except when the Pope taught it was ok to enslave the Native Americans that resisted Christianity. Or when charging interest on a loan ceased to be a mortal sin. Or when the Eastern Orthodox are now no longer damned.

Sigh.
[/quote]

Ok lets deal with your charges that the Church has infallibly taught that it was ok to enslave Native Americans, interest on a loan was mortal but now its not, and that the Eastern Churches were damned but now they are not. If you make these claims you are going to have to back them up otherwise your just blowing air. Provide for us the Church’s decrees in regards to each of these in their full context. This is an opportunity to prove the entire Catholic Church erroneous and all of Her teachings subject to error. This is a pretty big deal so I hope that you take great care in proving your case.


#19

[quote=martino]Ok lets deal with your charges that the Church has infallibly taught that it was ok to enslave Native Americans, interest on a loan was mortal but now its not, and that the Eastern Churches were damned but now they are not. If you make these claims you are going to have to back them up otherwise your just blowing air. Provide for us the Church’s decrees in regards to each of these in their full context. This is an opportunity to prove the entire Catholic Church erroneous and all of Her teachings subject to error. This is a pretty big deal so I hope that you take great care in proving your case.
[/quote]

I didn’t say the Church infallibly taught that it was ok to enslave the Indians. So don’t put words in my mouth or muddy the waters, thanks. The issue is that the Church can and does make mistakes, and I get sick of hearing how it doesn’t from my own people.

I will oblige you with one item and show how the Greeks were once damned for not being subject to the Pope. I happen to have this handy due to another thread.

Boniface VIII’s Papal Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’

November 18, 1302

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (Sgs 6:8) proclaims: “One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her”, and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3). In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5). There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John “there is one sheepfold and one shepherd”.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.


#20

[quote=Christopher]I didn’t say the Church infallibly taught that it was ok to enslave the Indians. So don’t put words in my mouth or muddy the waters, thanks. The issue is that the Church can and does make mistakes, and I get sick of hearing how it doesn’t from my own people.

I will oblige you with one item and show how the Greeks were once damned for not being subject to the Pope. I happen to have this handy due to another thread.

Boniface VIII’s Papal Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’

November 18, 1302

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (Sgs 6:8) proclaims: “One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her”, and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3). In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5). There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John “there is one sheepfold and one shepherd”.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
[/quote]

First I didnt put anything in your mouth, you responded to my statement that the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals with your thing about Indians. My claim was limited to faith and morals and is also limited to infallible statements. The whole reason for the thread is to show that when the Church teaches “infallibly” on matters of faith and morals, she cannot be proven to be false, never, not once in history. You were the one that chose to throw in non-infallible statements on things other than faith and morals. It is very easy to list mistakes made by the Church or memebers within the Church, that is not what is at issue; I am talking about Doctrines of the Faith, which all memebers of the Church are obligated to accept at least implicitly.

In reference to ‘Unam Sanctam’; you have given us one half of the point you wish to prove so I will wait until we get the other half of your argument before I respond; also because I am buying myself time to do some research! :smiley:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.