Théodred:
Scripture tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ, with Jesus, Himself, as its head. If Scripture is your “absolute”, then why in the world would you tell Our Blessed Lord that He is not a very reliable source of spiritual guidance and that He is not perfect? Why would you doubt your absolute when your absolute tells you that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, and that the Holy Spirit resides in the Church?
I’m not telling my Blessed Lord that He is not perfect. He is the Word made flesh. He is absolutely perfect and the ultimate source of revelation.
Your comment is embedded with an assumption. You are assuming a specific interpretation of Matt 16:18, which is the most common verse used to establish the Church’s infallibility. But to reach this conclusion, you must accept the Church’s “infallible” interpretatoin of the verse. In other words, you must assume a specific conclusion in order to reach the same conclusion. It is classic circular reasoning.
The Holy Spirit certainly does guide the Church, as He does individual believers. But consider the amazing relationship the Holy Spirit has with believers. He actually indwells us. But yet we know that Christians make mistakes and sometimes even rebel. How can that be when we are indwelled by the living God? Does this mean He is not perfect or that He is impotent? Of course not. He sovereignly guides us individually, but that does not mean we are perfect. We have free will and He allows us to make choices. He also sovereignly guides his Bride, the Body of Christ, but that does not mean the Bride is perfect – even in matters of faith and morals. Indeed, because the Church is made up of people, there is the possibility of error.
But we do need an absolute. Without it, we will drift and perish. People change, the Church has changed, but the Scriptures have not changed. Our understanding of Scripture may be imperfect, but the standard is there.
This raises an interesting conundrum. We can either have absolute knowledge or an absolute source. But we can’t have both. If the Magisterium is the absolute, there is a unified body of knowledge that Catholics can hang onto–absolute knowledge. But with that option you sacrifice an absolute source. History shows clearly that the Catholic Church has not been consistent in its teachings and practices of faith and morals.
On the other hand, if Scripture is the absolute, we may not have absolute knowledge. Correct interpretation of the more difficult passages of scripture depends upon many things, including help from the Holy Spirit (Ps. 119:18) and knowledge of history, context, and scripture as a whole. The Church and its sacred tradition is a tremendous help in this – please understand I am not discounting the role of tradition. But although correct interpretation is imperfect, the source itself is perfect. With the many transcripts available, there is extensive corroboration of the integrity of our Scriptures. It is an absolute source.
Of the 2 options, I prefer an absolute source to absolute knowledge. Many religions believe that they have absolute knowledge handed down to them from their authorities. I’m quite familiar with Mormonism, which has a very centralized approach to the interpretation of scriptures. Mormons take great comfort in in the absence of any ambiguity, as do many Catholics. But Mormons are in great error. It is not a monolithic dogma that is important, but an absolute source that can be empirically and logically tested for credibility.
Does unity = centralized dogma? No, but that’s another discussion!
Blessings to you.
), and know without a doubt I made the right choice to return to the True Faith. Though my life is far from perfect, it’s not nearly the empty hopeless abyss I felt it was when I strayed from The Lord for the lies of the world.
