Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

You can’t be serious that you actually believe all catholics interpret the magisterium the same can you?

Jeff

You are aware that the Magisterium isn’t “interpreted?”

Good. Now maybe you can understand that there is no tension between Scripture and Tradition, and that concepts like “equal” or “superior” cannot apply to Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

jphilapy:

Mike is not a forceful person. What you attribute to him is untrue.

You have reduced this discussion into a he said, she said. Your posts have evaded my responses and have instead simply made new points. None of your allegations have been supported.

jphilapy:

Want evidence? Don’t read into his post.

This makes no sense.

jphilapy:

Us protestants don’t often understand the ettiqute of catholics nor the teachings.

You do not speak for all protestants. If you do not understand Catholicism you would do very well to listen, instead of defend someone who has not listened.

jphilapy:

Not trying to be rude, I just think you need to leave the personal aspect out of the discussion and discuss the issue.

It is not a question of my needing anything. It is a question of **you **needing something from me. It is presumptuous of you to tell me what I need to do. And I would also say that it is rude, Sir or Madam. Your allegations are unsupported. Your posts have evaded what I have been saying to make new points. Your tautological accusations against me regarding ‘personal aspects’ have persisted. There is nothing personal about asking michaelp to amend his behaviour. You transgress grievously by suggesting that there is.

 

[michaelp]

You do understand this is the Catholic Church?

The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position is established by the Bishops.

Good. You concede to the disagreement among Catholics.

Let me now say that same thing about the Scripture and justify the disagreements among Protestants the same way.

You say:

“The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position is established by the Bishops.”

And it is OK

We say:

The fact that some Protestants are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Scripture is not relevant. The Protestant position is established by the Scriptures.

And it is false, right?

Is that a double standard?

To claim that this little thread of yours proves the Catholic Church is in disagreement is simply dishonest.

How so?

If you don’t understand our language and concepts, try learning before preaching.

This is an unsupported allegation.

Don’t pull dishonest stunts like citing an informal discussion as proof of the Church’s position!

It is proof of the disagreement among Catholics and directly evidences that it is sometimes difficult to interpret the Magisterium.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Good. You concede to the disagreement among Catholics.

“Stupidity is exasperating. Willful ignorance is bulletproof.”
– Uncle Herbivore

michaelp:

Let me now say that same thing about the Scripture and justify the disagreements among Protestants the same way.

The fact that some Protestants are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Scripture is not relevant. The Protestant position is established by the Scriptures.

Would this be OK?

No. The Catholic Church is not a collection of individual opinions. To say there is “disagreement among Catholics” implise there is disagreement in the Church – which would mean disagreement among bishops.

We both know that, and to pretend we don’t is disengenuous.

michaelp:

This is an unsupported allegation.

Oh? Just want does “If you don’t understand our language and concepts, try learning before preaching” allege?

michaelp:

It is proof of the disagreement among Catholics and directly evidences that it is sometimes difficult to interpret the Magisterium.

Back to your old nonsense that the Magisterium is “interpreted” again – this is what, the fourth time youi’ve made that nonsensical claim?

“Stupidity is exasperating. Willful ignorance is bulletproof.”
– Uncle Herbivore

 

[michaelp]

“Stupidity is exasperating. Willful ignorance is bulletproof.”
– Uncle Herbivore

No. The Catholic Church is not a collection of individual opinions. To say there is “disagreement among Catholics” implise there is disagreement in the Church – which would mean disagreement among bishops.

We both know that, and to pretend we don’t is disengenuous.

Oh? Just want does “If you don’t understand our language and concepts, try learning before preaching” allege?

Back to your old nonsense that the Magisterium is “interpreted” again – this is what, the fourth time youi’ve made that nonsensical claim?

“Stupidity is exasperating. Willful ignorance is bulletproof.”
– Uncle Herbivore

This entire response is question begging and does not deal with any of the issues.

Have a great night Vern,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Let me repeat this once again:

Let me now say that same thing about the Scripture that Vern said about the interpretation of the Magisterium in order to justify the disagreements among Protestants the same way.

Vern says:

“The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position is established by the Bishops.”

And it is OK

We say:

The fact that some Protestants are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Scripture is not relevant. The Protestant position is established by the Scriptures.

And it is false, right?

How is this NOT a double standard. You have disagreements about the interpretation of the Magisterium. Protestants have disagreements about the interpretation of the Scripture.

You have an unbrella confession to submit to the Magisterium while there are disagreements allowed and some difficulties in interpretation.

Protestans have an unbrella confession to submit to the Scriptures while there are disagreements allowed and some difficulties in interpretation.

Practically speaking, it looks like you don’t have that much of an advantage in fulfilling your concept of unity.

Vern, even though I am very serioius about this issue and I am really not just trying to be difficult, I want you to know that I respect you and your position.

In Him.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Ani Ibi:

It is not a question of my needing anything. It is a question of **you **needing something from me. It is presumptuous of you to tell me what I need to do. And I would also say that it is rude, Sir or Madam. Your allegations are unsupported. Your posts have evaded what I have been saying to make new points. Your tautological accusations against me regarding ‘personal aspects’ have persisted. There is nothing personal about asking michaelp to amend his behaviour. You transgress grievously by suggesting that there is.

Jeff, it looks as if I have dropped the couter-measures and the guided missle is now tailing you. Thanks, but I don’t envy you my brother.

Michael

 

[Martin_Luther]

Obviously these are extremely scriptural concepts, and essential elements to the Christian faith. Hence, again, this cannot be used to support an idea of an extrascriptural tradition.

This is true with the rest of the quotes by Irenaeus as well:

That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

Note, that he said that we would know if we did not have the writings suggesting that the tradition had the same contents as the writings.

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

Notice that in this quote Irenaeus is actually repudiating a position that said that the apostles had some hidden tradition that only the gnostics knew about. Again, he nowhere says that these are different, and since he is addressing the Gnostics and their idea of the pleroma, it is more than probable that these traditions are found in scripture. With regards to the Church of Rome, we must not confuse that with the Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus had a somewhat convoluted view of the Church of Rome as he was willing to praise it, but then repudiate it whenever they disagreed with him.

“Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition” (*Miscellanies *

1:1 [A.D. 208]).

Again, where does it say that this tradition contains anything apart from scripture? The problem is that one of the means of transmission of tradition was through the scriptures. Here, Clement is addressing heresies and hence is most probably talking about Biblical truths which the gnostics rejected.

Continued

 

[Martin_Luther]

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (*The Fundamental Doctrines *

1:2 [A.D. 225]).

“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (*Letters *75:3 [A.D. 253]).

What Origen was referring to was the specific doctrines which make up the apostolic creed. His comments are from his “On First Principles” which is an explanation and commentary on the creed. Hence, every protestant agrees with what is in this “apostolic tradition.” This is also true of your quote from Cyprian of Carthage. The “apostolic tradition” refers to the passing along of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith.

“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (*Festal Letters *

2:7 [A.D. 330]).

“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it,In your first quote, Athenasius actually mentions what he is referring to when he talks about tradition, “Praying together” and “giving thanks with one voice.” Obviously, these are Biblical concepts, and can hardly be a violation of Sola Scriptura. Also, Athenasius refers to the traditions as the “foundations of the faith.” Nothing here against Sola Scriptura. The faith that was passed is equal to the substance of scripture. Again, what does “tradition” mean in the early church? but has not been able” (ibid., 29).

In your first quote, Athenasius actually mentions what he is referring to when he talks about tradition, “Praying together” and “giving thanks with one voice.” Obviously, these are Biblical concepts, and can hardly be a violation of Sola Scriptura. Also, Athenasius refers to the traditions as the “foundations of the faith.” Nothing here against Sola Scriptura. The faith that was passed is equal to the substance of scripture. Again, what does “tradition” mean in the early church?

Continued

 

[Martin_Luther]

“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (*The Holy Spirit *27:66 [A.D. 375]).

“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

This issue here is whether there are two deposits or two methods. The Greek text allows for both. The translation which the author is using was made by Canisius and is somewhat out of date. I would agree with Yves Congar that these texts are showing the means of transmission rather than the deposit in the traditions.

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (*Letter to Januarius *[A.D. 400]).

“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (*Homilies on Second Thessalonians *[A.D. 402]).

Here is the second use of tradition. This is used to refer to practices in the early church such as triple immersion baptism. Again, this has nothing to do with doctrine. In your first quote the author has again openly shown what Augustine was referring to. He was referring to “customs” which were “fairly held” to have been joined to the apostles. This has nothing to do with doctrine. The same problem comes up in your second quote from Augustine. Where does Augustine say that the contents of these traditions are any different that what is contained in scripture? Does he say they have anything to do with doctrine? The same is true with the third quote. These are “observances” not doctrine. This is also what Chrysostom was talking about in his homily.

Continued

 

[Martin_Luther]

I would be willing to grant that Vincint of Lerins and Pope Agatho as denying Sola Scriptura, but they are quite late. Other than that, there is no one on this entire article who denies Sola Scriptura with the Roman Catholic view of tradition. Tradition is mentioned, but the task that the author had to do and did not, is show that what is contained in this traditions are apart from scripture, and also that these traditions are apostolic in origin. He didn’t do that, but just gave quotes assuming the meaning of the passages. This is what D.A. Carson calls “Semantic Anachronism.” It is where you take the meaning of a word today, and make it apply to a word in a document in the past when it is clear from lexical studies that the author did not have this in mind.

No one is saying that we should not pass along the teachings of the scriptures in both oral and written form. The question is if there is something in a “tradition” that is not found in the scriptures and has apostolic authority, then what is it and what is the proof that it has apostolic authority.

I do want to thank you, Mickey, becuase you understand the argument I am putting foward. Thank you for addressing it.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[teajay]

michaelp:

You have an unbrella confession to submit to the Magisterium while there are disagreements allowed and some difficulties in interpretation.

Protestans have an unbrella confession to submit to the Scriptures while there are disagreements allowed and some difficulties in interpretation.

Practically speaking, it looks like you don’t have that much of an advantage in fulfilling your concept of unity.

Michael, are you suggesting that the scope and magnitude of disagreement on doctrine(1) among those submitting to the Catholic Church as their supreme authority is similar to that among those that submit to Scipture(2), reasonably interpreted, as their supreme authority(3)?

1. Doctrine that relates to that which is essential to salvation.
2. Groups that make a reasonable attempt to properly interpret Scripture (not simply any person without any assistance). This will include the main Protestant denominations, but exclude any fringe groups that make no reasonable attempt to study Scripture.
3. In both cases I also exclude from analysis those that make no attempt to be properly informed.

I would have thought that there would be no shame in a Protestant acknowledging that Protestantism produces various, sometimes contradictory, doctrines, but that they believe that it is an unfortunate, but necessary, consequence of what they see as the true Christian faith.

I imagine an objective, non-religious observer would claim that Catholics sacrifice liberty for uniformity and Protestants, uniformity for liberty. If I can admit that the scope a Catholic has for interpreting Scripture is narrower than that of a Protestant, can’t you grant that, by and large, Catholic doctrine is more consistent than that of Protestants?

Protestants have greater scope in interpreting the Bible than do Catholics (although of course, it’s not absolute). Scripture is far more ambiguous and difficult to understand than the Magisterial teachings on, for example, Catholic salvation are. One is clearly going to produce various views whereas the other is going to produce far fewer - in fact, on that which relates to the salvation of Catholics, there can be no reasonable disagreement.

I don’t know why anyone would spend much time on arguing that sola scriptura could ever come close to the uniformity that an authoritative church is capable of providing. It doesn’t ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the legitimacy of Protestant beliefs anyway.

 

[teajay]

Oh and Michael I hope that post doesn’t seem harsh in tone. I really respect you so that wasn’t my intention.

 

[jphilapy]

teajay:

Oh and Michael I hope that post doesn’t seem harsh in tone. I really respect you so that wasn’t my intention.

sheeesh!!! don’t over do it ok, you are very nice in your presenting, and did a good job at explaining your position.

Jeff

 

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

How do you interpret “one of them cannot stand without the others”? There is alot of disagreement concerning this and the material sufficiency and dual-source theories. Which is correct? Hard to interpret this statement of the CCC.

But, that is the subject of another thread as we know. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890)

The point is, I think Jeff understand these issues just fine. I have never thought they are that difficult, do you?

Michael

Michael–Have you actually read the Catechism? It is very thorough and NOT hard to understand. There is little ambiguity (to the point of none–unless you willfully want to ignore parts of it). Catholic teaching is clear. Catholic laity are (or should be) clear on the teachings of the Faith.

Here it is on the internet vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
But if you want a hard copy–promise me you’ll read it and PM me your address or a P.O. Box and I will send one to you.

As a convert, I have reasoned what to me makes sense and found the fulfilment of that in the Church–not the other way around. When I have come to a point were something the Church taught seemed foriegn to me…I prayed on it…thought about it…read about it…and found the Church to have been right all along–that’s why I know what I do about the Church! I was never “catechized” I grew up Baptist–I saw anti-Catholic films IN CHURCH.

This search and study and pray thing has personally happened to me on several occasions to the degree that at this point I know that when God established the Church and handed the keys to Peter–it was for real–and I can rest in Him that decided that He was going to provide this Good Mother for us. I can count on the Church to make sense even if I sometimes have to struggle with questions–I know that at the end of my struggling–she will be there with the answer I maybe could have found on my own–if I could be true to the self that God originally designed in the Garden sans human nature and intellect warped by sin–but I do not need to–God has provided. It is a gift of faith–bolstered by a heavy dose of reason.

We’ve gone round and round about the “everything is interpretation”–it is a fruitless argument, because it has no conclusion. We are finite beings–God created us that way–we are supposed to wrestle with the Truth–it gives us freedom, the right to accept or deny. These pains are a gift, just as Christ’s pain on the cross was ultimately a gift. We should rejoice that we can suffer in Him, with Him. That’s another Catholic teaching I had to discover was true–the beauty in suffering…There is so much…

 

[Martin_Luther]

Hello Vern Humphrey!

There’s the strawman again – the proposition that Tradition is “extrascriptural.”

Vern, please don’t take me out of context. I was responding to Mickey, who responded to an inital post I had responded to concerning the canon. Hence, first, even if what you said were relevant, it would not make any sense since the canon argument is a partim/partim argument, not a material sufficiency argument. Second, I was talking about things that are explicit in scripture. If you will note, I even referred to Eusebius’ usage of the Law, Prophets, and the Lord. I was pointing out that he was in no way referring to some tradition that has no basis in the exegesis of the text of scripture. That is what I meant by extrascriptural, and I even mentioned that in the rest of the paragraph.

Don’t think that just because someone uses specific language that other people use to misrepresent, that they are trying to misrepresent you.

God Bless,
Martin Luther

 

[michaelp]

teajay:

Michael, are you suggesting that the scope and magnitude of disagreement on doctrine(1) among those submitting to the Catholic Church as their supreme authority is similar to that among those that submit to Scipture(2), reasonably interpreted, as their supreme authority(3)?

1. Doctrine that relates to that which is essential to salvation.
2. Groups that make a reasonable attempt to properly interpret Scripture (not simply any person without any assistance). This will include the main Protestant denominations, but exclude any fringe groups that make no reasonable attempt to study Scripture.
3. In both cases I also exclude from analysis those that make no attempt to be properly informed.

I would have thought that there would be no shame in a Protestant acknowledging that Protestantism produces various, sometimes contradictory, doctrines, but that they believe that it is an unfortunate, but necessary, consequence of what they see as the true Christian faith.

I imagine an objective, non-religious observer would claim that Catholics sacrifice liberty for uniformity and Protestants, uniformity for liberty. If I can admit that the scope a Catholic has for interpreting Scripture is narrower than that of a Protestant, can’t you grant that, by and large, Catholic doctrine is more consistent than that of Protestants?

Protestants have greater scope in interpreting the Bible than do Catholics (although of course, it’s not absolute). Scripture is far more ambiguous and difficult to understand than the Magisterial teachings on, for example, Catholic salvation are. One is clearly going to produce various views whereas the other is going to produce far fewer - in fact, on that which relates to the salvation of Catholics, there can be no reasonable disagreement.

I don’t know why anyone would spend much time on arguing that sola scriptura could ever come close to the uniformity that an authoritative church is capable of providing. It doesn’t ‘prove’ or ‘disprove’ the legitimacy of Protestant beliefs anyway.

My approach has been rather humble. It is simply to let people understand that the Magisterium must be interpreted and there is sometimes ambiguity. Would you agree?

You exist under a supposed submission to the Magisterial authority that has various interpretations of certian issues, both in Scripture and in the Magisterium itself.

Evangelical Protestants exist under a supposed submission to the Scriptural authority that has various interpretations of certian issues.

Now, both are not very difficult to interpret for the most part. But both have ambiguities.

That is all.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

teajay:

Oh and Michael I hope that post doesn’t seem harsh in tone. I really respect you so that wasn’t my intention.

Are you kidding teajay. Your posts are enlightening and a great refreshment. Glad you are here.

Michael

 

[vern_humphrey]

michaelp:

Let me repeat this once again:

Let me now say that same thing about the Scripture that Vern said about the interpretation of the Magisterium in order to justify the disagreements among Protestants the same way.

Vern says:

“The fact that some Catholics are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Church is not relevant. The Church’s position is established by the Bishops.”

And it is OK

We say:

The fact that some Protestants are less than letter-perfect in their understanding of the Scripture is not relevant. The Protestant position is established by the Scriptures.

And it is false, right?

How would I call that false? It’s perfectly true that most Protestant religions are based on Scripture. (I say “most” because some Protestant religions have additional Scriptures, not generally recognized by other churches.)

michaelp:

How is this NOT a double standard. You have disagreements about the interpretation of the Magisterium. Protestants have disagreements about the interpretation of the Scripture.

What “double standard?” We do not dictate to your churches what to believe, and we object when you try to do that to us.

However, I applaud your attempt (what is it, the fifth or sixth?) to claim we “interpret” the Magisterium.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

michaelp:

You have an unbrella confession to submit to the Magisterium while there are disagreements allowed and some difficulties in interpretation.

That would make seven times you’ve made this false statement, attempting to force upon us your version of what we believe. We do not “interpret” the Magisterium

michaelp:

Protestans have an unbrella confession to submit to the Scriptures while there are disagreements allowed and some difficulties in interpretation.

Practically speaking, it looks like you don’t have that much of an advantage in fulfilling your concept of unity…

It “looks” that way only because you persist in your false claim that we “interpret” the Magisterium.

michaelp:

Vern, even though I am very serioius about this issue and I am really not just trying to be difficult, I want you to know that I respect you and your position.

In Him.

Michael

I suggest you drop the claim that we “interpret” the Magisterium, then.

 

[michaelp]

st_felicity:

Michael–Have you actually read the Catechism? It is very thorough and NOT hard to understand. There is little ambiguity (to the point of none–unless you willfully want to ignore parts of it). Catholic teaching is clear. Catholic laity are (or should be) clear on the teachings of the Faith.

Here it is on the internet vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm
But if you want a hard copy–promise me you’ll read it and PM me your address or a P.O. Box and I will send one to you.

As a convert, I have reasoned what to me makes sense and found the fulfilment of that in the Church–not the other way around. When I have come to a point were something the Church taught seemed foriegn to me…I prayed on it…thought about it…read about it…and found the Church to have been right all along–that’s why I know what I do about the Church! I was never “catechized” I grew up Baptist–I saw anti-Catholic films IN CHURCH.

This search and study and pray thing has personally happened to me on several occasions to the degree that at this point I know that when God established the Church and handed the keys to Peter–it was for real–and I can rest in Him that decided that He was going to provide this Good Mother for us. I can count on the Church to make sense even if I sometimes have to struggle with questions–I know that at the end of my struggling–she will be there with the answer I maybe could have found on my own–if I could be true to the self that God originally designed in the Garden sans human nature and intellect warped by sin–but I do not need to–God has provided. It is a gift of faith–bolstered by a heavy dose of reason.

We’ve gone round and round about the “everything is interpretation”–it is a fruitless argument, because it has no conclusion. We are finite beings–God created us that way–we are supposed to wrestle with the Truth–it gives us freedom, the right to accept or deny. These pains are a gift, just as Christ’s pain on the cross was ultimately a gift. We should rejoice that we can suffer in Him, with Him. That’s another Catholic teaching I had to discover was true–the beauty in suffering…There is so much…

Thanks Felicity. I have had the Catechism for years. I have many many works written by RCs.