"The Church can teach no error"

[Beatrice]

I went to a diocesan-allowed TLM today and in his sermon, the priest made this statement that "the Church can teach no error" and to not accept this is heresy. He continued with "To say 'if [XYZ doctrine] is changed I'm out' is a heretical way of thinking."

There were other things in his sermon that I violently disagreed with, and I left Mass with a very troubled and tumultuous soul (that is pretty language for "I was incredibly angry!!!"). I'd like some input in regards to the above. I quite frankly don't believe it's true, because it is my understanding that the ex cathedra teachings of the Church are without error- and the Church's "safety system" to prevent error and retain infallibility requires that differentiation between what is allowed or less-formally taught and the formal, ex cathedra, dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I find the statement "the Church can teach no error" problematic, because it is broad and imprecise language. To my mind if it is true as stated without any qualifiers, then we can't question any teaching whatsoever from the Church, including V2. If it is true, than we either need to embrace V2 and the modern Church, or the position of sedevacantism is correct and we have been without a true pope for decades. I don't even understand what the point of a diocesan TLM is if there aren't real problems with the new Mass and V2 teachings. Just sentimentality?

Is my thinking correct and orthodox? Can anyone help me with sourcing this so I have Church doctrine to point to if I need to defend my position? I am pretty sure I'm right. However, I'm really, really quite upset about this because according to the priest I *am* a heretic- and an angry one at that! So, I would rather check and be corrected if necessary than allow my emotions to cloud and control my judgement.

Thank you.

[Sockpuppet]

In my opinion, he's right. Either you choose the Church warts and all or sedevecantism.

I choose the church warts and all.

[Beatrice]

In my opinion, he's right. Either you choose the Church warts and all or sedevecantism.

I choose the church warts and all.

So you don't have any problems with V2?

[Pheo]

In my opinion, he's right. Either you choose the Church warts and all or sedevecantism.

I choose the church warts and all.

Even in the context of changing doctrine?  Because that was in the first paragraph of the OP.

Doctrine can't change.  He's wrong.

[Recovering NOer]

I don't even understand what the point of a diocesan TLM is if there aren't real problems with the new Mass and V2 teachings. Just sentimentality?

That's the conclusion I've reached.

[Parresia]

It sounds to me like he was just imprecise in his statement.  If you are really troubled, I suggest speaking to him politely and asking for clarification.  It is obviously true that the Church cannot formally declare error to be truth or deny that truth which has been revealed.  However, the infallibility of the Church is limited to very specific circumstances.  A lack of understanding of this is one of the many causes of confusion in the Church today.  The idea that the Church can teach no error as well as a lack of understanding of Papal Infallibility in a large way contributed to the fall we saw after Vatican II, and its perpetuation today.  I cannot tell you how many Catholics of good will, who would fall onto he conservative side of the spectrum, honestly believe that anytime the Pope talks about faith or morals he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. 

[Kaesekopf]

As a reminder, the description for this subforum is "Here is the place to have serious, semi-scholarly discussions on theology and philosophy."  Please try to keep responses on-point, serious, and somewhat based/founded on the teachings of the Church.  Thank you.

[james03]

The problem staring us in the face is indefectibility.  So if Francis were to officially promulgate that adulterers can receive communion, then he'd be promulgating sacrilege. 

As others have said "the Church teaching error" is too vague. 

[LouisIX]

In my opinion, he's right. Either you choose the Church warts and all or sedevecantism.

I choose the church warts and all.

Indeed.  And the history of the Church has been more than messy at times.  She is pristine in Her de fide teaching, of course, but that does not extend to much of the actions and words of the hierarchy (especially in a modern period wherein the hierarchy is heard so much due to existence of mass media).

[LouisIX]

The problem staring us in the face is indefectibility.  So if Francis were to officially promulgate that adulterers can receive communion, then he'd be promulgating sacrilege. 

As others have said "the Church teaching error" is too vague.

It is too vague if it is left at that.  This is why VI dealt extensively with papal infallibility and why other councils have dealt extensively with the different levels of Maigsterial teaching.

Most of the problems present in the Church today stem from a misapplication or misunderstanding of the axiom "the Church can teach no error".  What that means cannot be summed up in even the longest of forum posts.

[Stranger]

I went to a diocesan-allowed TLM today and in his sermon, the priest made this statement that "the Church can teach no error" and to not accept this is heresy. He continued with "To say 'if [XYZ doctrine] is changed I'm out' is a heretical way of thinking."

Actually, these statements are correct. The Church is inviolate and indefectible and can indeed teach no error - any error that a bishop or a pope teaches is not the teaching of the Church, but his personal error. Also, to say that if Francis promulgates or orders something contrary to the Faith this will mean that the Church has failed is indeed heretical. The Church can never defect but the person in authority can, and any of his actions done after the fact would be invalid. He would be outside the Faith, consequently outside the Church, and unable to command in the Church. He cannot be the head if he is not a member, as St. Robert Bellarmine would say. And there is certainly enough solidly founded doubt in Francis' person already.

[Older Salt]

The Church is actually part of Christ.

Christ can never teach falsehood.

[Michael Wilson]

The Church is actually part of Christ.

Christ can never teach falsehood.

Exactly! Our Lord established an infallible magisterium that teaches the truth daily, not only every 100 or 200 years when there is a solemn Ex-Cathedra statement, or a Ecumenical Council.  The Holy Ghost was promised to be with the Church "all days" even unto the consummation of the world.

[INPEFESS]

The problem staring us in the face is indefectibility.  So if Francis were to officially promulgate that adulterers can receive communion, then he'd be promulgating sacrilege. 

As others have said "the Church teaching error" is too vague.

The post-VII have already officially promulgated sacrilege: the universal disciplinary law that authorizes the distribution of communion to non-Catholics. We got to that point of magisterial sacrilege decades ago.

[SouthpawLink]

The problem staring us in the face is indefectibility.  So if Francis were to officially promulgate that adulterers can receive communion, then he'd be promulgating sacrilege. 

As others have said "the Church teaching error" is too vague.

The post-VII have already officially promulgated sacrilege: the universal disciplinary law that authorizes the distribution of communion to non-Catholics. We got to that point of magisterial sacrilege decades ago.

Indeed.  Before then, there was Paul VI's Ad totum ecclesiam; remember that thread? (Either FE or my phone isn't letting me link to it, but it's Scotus' six-page thread titled "Acta Apostolicae Sedis".)