Circular Reasoning

[Awake]

Protestants are often criticized, (and rightly so I think), for using circular reasoning by proving scripture with scripture.

However, aren’t Catholics also guilty of circular reasoning? Don’t we prove the Church with the Church?

For instance, when Catholics are confronted with doubts of the validity and infallibility of the Church, they will point to Scripture (which was canonized by the Church) or they will point to quotes from the Church fathers as evidence. But how is this any different than proving Scripture with Scripture?

The most common argument I see is Jesus promising that the gates of hell will not prevail over the church in Matthew 16:18. But again, this is using scripture (which was canonized by the Church) to prove that the Church and the canonization process is valid. Even if this was a well attributed quote to Jesus outside of the gospel of Matthew, it is still unclear what it means for the “gates of hell” to prevail. It takes Catholic doctrine to declare that this means that the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Protestants are often criticized, (and rightly so I think), for using circular reasoning by proving scripture with scripture.

However, aren’t Catholics also guilty of circular reasoning? Don’t we prove the Church with the Church?

For instance, when Catholics are confronted with doubts of the validity and infallibility of the Church, they will point to Scripture (which was canonized by the Church) or they will point to quotes from the Church fathers as evidence. But how is this any different than proving Scripture with Scripture?

The most common argument I see is Jesus promising that the gates of hell will not prevail over the church in Matthew 16:18. But again, this is using scripture (which was canonized by the Church) to prove that the Church and the canonization process is valid. Even if this was a well attributed quote to Jesus outside of the gospel of Matthew, it is still unclear what it means for the “gates of hell” to prevail. It takes Catholic doctrine to declare that this means that the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

This is not a circular argument, but a spiral argument in that you arrive back at the same place in and (x,y) coordinate but deeper along the z axis.

This article should help you arrive at an inspired Church and an inerrant canon:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

 

[YourAverageJoe]

Protestants are often criticized, (and rightly so I think), for using circular reasoning by proving scripture with scripture.

However, aren’t Catholics also guilty of circular reasoning? Don’t we prove the Church with the Church?

For instance, when Catholics are confronted with doubts of the validity and infallibility of the Church, they will point to Scripture (which was canonized by the Church) or they will point to quotes from the Church fathers as evidence. But how is this any different than proving Scripture with Scripture?

The most common argument I see is Jesus promising that the gates of hell will not prevail over the church in Matthew 16:18. But again, this is using scripture (which was canonized by the Church) to prove that the Church and the canonization process is valid. Even if this was a well attributed quote to Jesus outside of the gospel of Matthew, it is still unclear what it means for the “gates of hell” to prevail. It takes Catholic doctrine to declare that this means that the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

No!

Everything that makes a claim needs a witness to declare it so. It itself, **can not **be its own witness. That is circular reasoning. You start at X and do a 360 and arrive back at X. For Protestants, scripture validates scripture.

The Church is the first and only witness to Scripture. The Church declares scripture inspired. In this case, Y witnesses to X. You are a child of your parents not because you say so, but because your parents confirms so. Again, Y confirms X…

In Christ!

 

[Luke65]

No, neither Protestants or Catholics are guilty of circular reasoning in that respect - God has given us plenty of proof that the Holy Scriptures are indeed His Word. The problem, for Protestants, is that the Bible never says that the Bible is the only authority; in fact, it says explicitly that the Church that our Lord Jesus founded on Peter the “Rock” has full authority, and that “the gates of hell will not prevail” over His Church (Matt. 16:18). And 2000 years later Jesus’ promise is fulfilled for all to see! This website lists the many scriptural proofs for the Church’s authority (see the first few topics):

scripturecatholic.com/

 

[YourAverageJoe]

Think of this,
many in the early Church died in the mouths of lions declaring scripture inspired…
I never seen the lions eat paper…

In Christ!

 

[Catholicc]

Protestants are often criticized, (and rightly so I think), for using circular reasoning by proving scripture with scripture.

However, aren’t Catholics also guilty of circular reasoning? Don’t we prove the Church with the Church?..

Not at all. Karl Keating covers this in his book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism”.
I’m gonna see if I can find the quote before I type it all out.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Protestants are often criticized, (and rightly so I think), for using circular reasoning by proving scripture with scripture.

However, aren’t Catholics also guilty of circular reasoning? Don’t we prove the Church with the Church?

For instance, when Catholics are confronted with doubts of the validity and infallibility of the Church, they will point to Scripture (which was canonized by the Church) or they will point to quotes from the Church fathers as evidence. But how is this any different than proving Scripture with Scripture?

The most common argument I see is Jesus promising that the gates of hell will not prevail over the church in Matthew 16:18. But again, this is using scripture (which was canonized by the Church) to prove that the Church and the canonization process is valid. Even if this was a well attributed quote to Jesus outside of the gospel of Matthew, it is still unclear what it means for the “gates of hell” to prevail. It takes Catholic doctrine to declare that this means that the Catholic Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

I think both Scripture and extra-Scriptural references are consistent in the message that Jesus passed on His authority to His apostles and their successors. It’s not so much circular as historically consistent in the writings of Scripture’s authors as well as the ECFs. The martyrs shed their very blood for this faith and this historical Church. Many, many witnesses saw Christ crucified and then alive again. Their testimony to this event is consistent, including those of contemporary non-Christians from what I understand. The whole thing rests on Jesus dying and rising again as a historical reality. By that testimony, witnesses professed and knew Him to be the Son of God as He claimed. Then you have the amazing testimony of the spread of this Church, adding force to the validity of the event and the words of Christ passing on His authority. What but Christianity can claim such a spread throughout all corners of the earth. What about the miracles that continue in Christ’s name? All of these things verify the words of Christ recorded by the early Church in both Scripture and Tradition. So it is not so much circular as it is a truth in the center of numerous arrows all pointing to the same truth.

 

[Catholicc]

Protestants are often criticized, (and rightly so I think), for using circular reasoning by proving scripture with scripture.

However, aren’t Catholics also guilty of circular reasoning? Don’t we prove the Church with the Church?..

Okay. Go to this link:
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
…and read starting from where it says “No Rational Basis”. Or better yet, just read the whole thing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Protestants are often criticized, (and rightly so I think), for using circular reasoning by proving scripture with scripture.

One should also note that the evidence for the deposit of faith does not simply consists of reasoning. There are three kinds of evidence which support any belief system: 1) personal experience, 2) reasoning, and 3) testimony of others. These three describe the “evidence” of any belief, whether the field of study is science, law, military studies, politics, or theology.

Christianity is based upon all three. It is not “circular” because it has a beginning, a instances in time when Divine revelation occurred (and continues to occur). The beginning of the argument is the Creator, who made the world and all creation which is visible and invisible. Since we were not present at creation, we can only conclude that God exists by reason, our own experience, and testimony about the things he has created. This is called “natural” revelation.

Since we cannot know all things God wanted us to know about God, man, and the universe from reason alone, we also received further testimony of a “supernatural” sort regarding God, man, and the universe, as well as about God’s will for mankind.

The beginning of the argument is the entire revelation of God, both natural and supernatural. This is not circular, but is discerned using one’s experience, the testimony of others, and reason.

Catholics don’t have to “prove the Church” (whatever that means). All the doctrines of Christianity are regulated and nourished by both natural and supernatural revelation.

It would only be circular reasoning if we “made up” the natural and supernatural evidence for God, then used that “made up” evidence to conclude that God exists. The truthfulness of God’s revelation through nature can be discerned through science. The principles of philosophy helps man to understand the importance of living a religious life, as contrarty to clinging to irreligion. Finally, both philosophy and theology help man to discern true religion from false religion.

Nonetheless, every argument must consist of clear terms, true premises, and logical conclusions. You must begin an argument, for example, with a common understanding of the terms you are using (i.e., use the terms unambiguously, understood by both protagonist and antagonist), and begin with accepted premises (i.e. premises whose veracity both the antagonist and protagonist agree upon), and then logically infer from these toward a valid conclusion. Reasoning is done both inductively and deductively, the former does not “prove” in the strict sense of the word, but at best only gives high certainty of the conclusion. The latter, if done correctly, proves the conclusion.

Nonetheless, the most important decisions (e.g. love, marriage, religion) are not those believed based upon pure reason. One’s personal experience and the trustworthy testimony of others is also part of the evidence for all beliefs.

It is reasonable to believe the testimony, for example, of a trustworthy source. For instance, the Apostle Thomas had every reason to trust those he had lived with for the past several years. Did they have any reason to deceive him? Why didn’t Thomas believe based upon such trustworthy testimony? I have believed a lot less important things on less trustworthy testimony, as I think we all have. If we all had to “see” to believe then we’d likely be living in the paralysis of indecision about a great many number of things in our lived, apart from religious beliefs. So, in practical lives, it can be most reasonable to believe someone who has consistently proved themselves trustworthy than to reject their testimony. That doesn’t “prove” the testimony to be true. However, the reasons for belief can often far outweigh the reasons for unbelief. While some claim to be “agnostic,” this term has no meaning in the practical world. Either you live as if you believe in God, or you live as if you don’t believe in God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You might also consider that we use the U.S. Constitution itself to argue for or against the Constitutionality of a given law. But we don’t use the U.S. Constitution “alone.” There is no such thing as “Sola Constitution” likened to the Protestant epistemology of “Sola Scritpura.” It isn’t every citizen who has the right and responsibility of authoritatively interpreting the Constitution on the behalf of the U.S., but instead there exists a governing body to lawfully judge whether a given law is Constitutional or not. That governing body seriously considers prior judgments on the issue in making their decision (or at least, should). That method is not circular reasoning, but seeks to properly interpret something given to us by our forefathers, in the lawful manner intended by our forefathers.

Likewise, Christianity is not “Sola Scriptura” but does use Scripture to rightly interpret doctrine. Not every Christian has the right and responsibility of authoritatively interpreting Scripture on the behalf of the Church, but instead there exists a governing body to lawfully judge whether a given doctrine is in accord with the deposit of faith or not. That method is not circular reasoning, but seeks to properly interpret something given to us by our early Church fathers, in the lawful manner intended by our early Church fathers.

Can I prove that the U.S. Constitution was the authorial intent of the our American forefathers? Do I need to rely upon trustworthy testimony? Can I disprove the notion that every citizen is equally empowered to determine the sense of law via “Sola Constitution?” I think that there’s sufficient historical evidence to conclude with sufficient certainty that “Sola Constituition” was not the intent of our American forefathers. Likewise, there’s a large body of historical evidence which makes belief in Sola Scriptura rather absurd.

 

[Knowtheledge]

This is not a circular argument, but a spiral argument in that you arrive back at the same place in and (x,y) coordinate but deeper along the z axis.

This article should help you arrive at an inspired Church and an inerrant canon:

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

I read that article, but I still don’t understand how Catholics justify Church infallibility by the Bible. The article said, “On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.” But I still don’t see how they got to the conclusion of an infallible Church. I believe the Bible is infallible, but where does it say in the Bible that the Church is?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I read that article, but I still don’t understand how Catholics justify Church infallibility by the Bible. The article said, “On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.” But I still don’t see how they got to the conclusion of an infallible Church. I believe the Bible is infallible, but where does it say in the Bible that the Church is?

Ah. You seem to have missed the part where the Bible teaches that the Church will be built and protected and led into all truth by God Himself and that the gates of hell would never prevail against her.

Purely historical Bible > Jesus is God > Jesus promised to build a Church > Church must be infallible > Church bears witness to the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Thus, we can rely on the Bible because an infallible Church declares it to be divinely inspired.

As for Church infallibility, here is my case:

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[Knowtheledge]

Ah. You seem to have missed the part where the Bible teaches that the Church will be built and protected and led into all truth by God Himself and that the gates of hell would never prevail against her.

Purely historical Bible > Jesus is God > Jesus promised to build a Church > Church must be infallible > Church bears witness to the divine inspiration of the Bible.

Thus, we can rely on the Bible because an infallible Church declares it to be divinely inspired.

As for Church infallibility, here is my case:

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Just because the Church can make mistakes does not mean the gates of hades has prevailed over it.

And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Isn’t Jesus with us even when we sin? Christ is always with the true Church, even if they make errors.

If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus not give the Counselor or did the Counselor simply fail to remain with the Church “forever”?

Of course He gave Christians the Holy Spirit, but I don’t think that just because the Spirit is with the Church that means they can never be wrong. After all, Peter recieved the Holy Spirit, and yet Paul actually had to publically reprimand him later for his hypocricy. So isn’t that evidence of a Pope making an error?

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

No.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

No. That verse says the Holy Spirit teaches and reminds, it doesn’t say He makes the Church infallible.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

That says the Spirit will guide the disciples into all truth, it does not say it will make the Church infallibile. That verse also says the Spirit will “tell you what is yet to come”. Does that mean the Catholic Church can predict the future?

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

No, yes, and no. And I still don’t see how those verses address the infallibility of the Church. You seem to be assuming a lot about all those verses and reading a lot into them.

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

I know Christ will protect his Church until the end of time, it’s just that I don’t see why the Church has to be infallible.

 

[brandymmiller]

You do not prove something is true by quoting Sacred Scripture, or even by quoting Tradition. This will not prove anything to anyone, since it will not change hearts or minds. You prove something is true by testing the assumption and analyzing the results.

Now, the Catholic Church’s teachings are based on several things:

1. That God is Love
2. That Christ is God
3. That following Christ is, therefore, the Way to Love, the Truth about how Love works, and the Life of love.
4. That Christ established one Church to pass on His teachings to humanity
5. That the Catholic Church is that Church
6. That obedience to the teachings of the Catholic Church will result in a person becoming more like Christ in their ability to love others

The means to test these teachings are many:

1. We can observe the lives of those whom the Church calls Saints, since these are the best examples of human beings living in obedience to the Church. We can gauge for ourselves based on their writings and what was written about them how Christ-like they were. Are these saints more loving than we are? Are they more loving than other people we know?
2. We can choose to ignore or disobey the teachings of the Church. From personal experience, I know how this particular experiment ends. You and those you care about walk away wounded; the Church remains standing, at peace with herself and her nature, but full of compassion for you and those you have wounded by your sins.
3. We can choose to obey the teachings of the Church for a time and see whether we experience any change in our capacity to give and receive love. If we choose to do this, we should be committed to doing it for a lengthy period and to (as any good scientist would) daily journaling of our experiences, thoughts, and feelings so that we may compare beginning to end. I recommend no less than 30 days for this test, and ideally a year so that you have an opportunity to experience all of the seasons of the Church.

When conducting this test, it is important to remember that what you are seeking is a personal relationship with Christ if you do not already have one, and a deepening of that relationship if you do. Prayer is a CONVERSATIOn with a LIVING God. You must not only speak to Him as you would a human being, but you must be COMPLETELY honest with Him, AND you must give sufficient time to listening.

Now, as far as prayer goes it is also important to remember that God is not a pez dispenser so that you pull the head back and get what you want each time. He is not a mathematical equation so that if you plug in x you get y. He is not a slot machine so that you pull the lever and try your luck. Because prayer is a conversation, you will not always receive the responses you asked for nor will they be delivered in the way you expected just as happens with almost any conversation you have. In fact, if you received the same response from Him every time you had a conversation with Him - it wouldn’t take you very long to conclude that this was not a living being but some sort of automaton.

When reading the Bible it is important to read it, not as a stand-alone book, but as a point of departure for prayer. Jot down in your journal the passage you read and any thoughts you have about the passage you’ve read, any feelings it generates, any questions it brings up - including the question of “WHAT were you thinking?” Believe me, He LOVES to answer your questions when you are ready for those answers. Then bring them to God and talk to Him about it. Honesty is the key. If the passage made you angry, say so. If it made you nervous, admit it. If it made you laugh, don’t be afraid to laugh.

Furthermore, it is extremely helpful when reading the Bible (be sure to use a Catholic Bible when conducting this study, too) to seek out a good Catholic study guide so that you can understand the context of the events. These books were written in a cultural context that is often very foreign to us. One of the purposes of Sacred Tradition is to ensure that the original context didn’t get lost, so that the intended meaning does not get lost no matter how far removed from the original events we are.

God is not afraid of questions. He welcomes them, He longs to share His gifts of Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding with those who seek them. Taste and see the goodness of the Lord.

By the way, as a final note, if you have a Eucharistic Adoration chapel in your city that is a perpetual adoration chapel be sure to spend as much time as you can in that chapel. Since the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, there is no better place to test the Church than in the presence of Him who built Her.

 

[fhansen]

The Catholic and Orthodox are the only serious contenders for the title of Churches whose histories are traceable in unbroken fashion back to the time of Christ. Combine that with the fact that Sola Scriptura folk can’t agree on sometimes very important tenets and it becomes obvious that it’s Orthodox/Catholic-or nothing at all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just because the Church can make mistakes does not mean the gates of hades has prevailed over it.

If the Church were to teach a false doctrine, then, yes, Hell would have triumphed over her.

70Isn’t Jesus with us even when we sin? Christ is always with the true Church, even if they make errors.

If the Church makes errors, people are led astray and go to Hell. So, no, I don’t think Jesus would allow this.

Of course He gave Christians the Holy Spirit, but I don’t think that just because the Spirit is with the Church that means they can never be wrong. After all, Peter recieved the Holy Spirit, and yet Paul actually had to publically reprimand him later for his hypocricy. So isn’t that evidence of a Pope making an error?

No. Peter may have been guilty of hypocrisy or weakness, but he was not rebuked by Paul for formally teaching error.

No. That verse says the Holy Spirit teaches and reminds, it doesn’t say He makes the Church infallible.

If you were taught by the Holy Spirit and reminded of everything that you had learned, would you ever make an error?

That says the Spirit will guide the disciples into all truth, it does not say it will make the Church infallibile. That verse also says the Spirit will “tell you what is yet to come”. Does that mean the Catholic Church can predict the future?

No, it doesn’t. Jesus promised this gift of the Spirit to a small group of men who constituted the proto-Magisterium of the Church. The promise was not made out on a hillside to all believers. You have only to examine your own life to know that you are not led into all truth in all things by the Spirit. Additionally, not all denominations can claim this promise since one teaches the baptism of infants for the regeneration of their souls while another teaches against the same thing. The Spirit cannot lead these denominations into contradictory truths.

 

[Awake]

If the Church were to teach a false doctrine, then, yes, Hell would have triumphed over her.

According to who?

 

[Awake]

You do not prove something is true by quoting Sacred Scripture, or even by quoting Tradition. This will not prove anything to anyone, since it will not change hearts or minds. You prove something is true by testing the assumption and analyzing the results.

Now, the Catholic Church’s teachings are based on several things:

1. That God is Love
2. That Christ is God
3. That following Christ is, therefore, the Way to Love, the Truth about how Love works, and the Life of love.
4. That Christ established one Church to pass on His teachings to humanity
5. That the Catholic Church is that Church
6. That obedience to the teachings of the Catholic Church will result in a person becoming more like Christ in their ability to love others

The means to test these teachings are many:

1. We can observe the lives of those whom the Church calls Saints, since these are the best examples of human beings living in obedience to the Church. We can gauge for ourselves based on their writings and what was written about them how Christ-like they were. Are these saints more loving than we are? Are they more loving than other people we know?
2. We can choose to ignore or disobey the teachings of the Church. From personal experience, I know how this particular experiment ends. You and those you care about walk away wounded; the Church remains standing, at peace with herself and her nature, but full of compassion for you and those you have wounded by your sins.
3. We can choose to obey the teachings of the Church for a time and see whether we experience any change in our capacity to give and receive love. If we choose to do this, we should be committed to doing it for a lengthy period and to (as any good scientist would) daily journaling of our experiences, thoughts, and feelings so that we may compare beginning to end. I recommend no less than 30 days for this test, and ideally a year so that you have an opportunity to experience all of the seasons of the Church.

When conducting this test, it is important to remember that what you are seeking is a personal relationship with Christ if you do not already have one, and a deepening of that relationship if you do. Prayer is a CONVERSATIOn with a LIVING God. You must not only speak to Him as you would a human being, but you must be COMPLETELY honest with Him, AND you must give sufficient time to listening.

Now, as far as prayer goes it is also important to remember that God is not a pez dispenser so that you pull the head back and get what you want each time. He is not a mathematical equation so that if you plug in x you get y. He is not a slot machine so that you pull the lever and try your luck. Because prayer is a conversation, you will not always receive the responses you asked for nor will they be delivered in the way you expected just as happens with almost any conversation you have. In fact, if you received the same response from Him every time you had a conversation with Him - it wouldn’t take you very long to conclude that this was not a living being but some sort of automaton.

When reading the Bible it is important to read it, not as a stand-alone book, but as a point of departure for prayer. Jot down in your journal the passage you read and any thoughts you have about the passage you’ve read, any feelings it generates, any questions it brings up - including the question of “WHAT were you thinking?” Believe me, He LOVES to answer your questions when you are ready for those answers. Then bring them to God and talk to Him about it. Honesty is the key. If the passage made you angry, say so. If it made you nervous, admit it. If it made you laugh, don’t be afraid to laugh.

Furthermore, it is extremely helpful when reading the Bible (be sure to use a Catholic Bible when conducting this study, too) to seek out a good Catholic study guide so that you can understand the context of the events. These books were written in a cultural context that is often very foreign to us. One of the purposes of Sacred Tradition is to ensure that the original context didn’t get lost, so that the intended meaning does not get lost no matter how far removed from the original events we are.

God is not afraid of questions. He welcomes them, He longs to share His gifts of Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding with those who seek them. Taste and see the goodness of the Lord.

By the way, as a final note, if you have a Eucharistic Adoration chapel in your city that is a perpetual adoration chapel be sure to spend as much time as you can in that chapel. Since the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, there is no better place to test the Church than in the presence of Him who built Her.

Thanks for the response.

 

[SteveGC]

What a wonderful post, brandy. Thank you.

 

[brandymmiller]

The Catholic and Orthodox are the only serious contenders for the title of Churches whose histories are traceable in unbroken fashion back to the time of Christ. Combine that with the fact that Sola Scriptura folk can’t agree on sometimes very important tenets and it becomes obvious that it’s Orthodox/Catholic-or nothing at all.

Only assuming that they know their history, which most Protestants do not.