Maybe not. But I don’t rely on only one person’s experience, reasoning or opinion. I research widely and consider various opposing viewpoints.
That makes perfect sense!
However, ultimately it IS one particular individual’s reasoning (namely mine) that decides what I think is true or most likely true. The decision process is consultative, but not participative.
In a way, that makes sense, too – after all, in the ‘real world’, that’s how things go. We take in facts and opinions and draw our own conclusions. In the faith world, there’s a similar correspondence: when people talk about the role of conscience in one’s faith, that’s exactly what they’re talking about – each of us is responsible for making our own decisions about whether we follow the faith or not.
In the area of the
content of the faith, however, it’s a different story. Let me explain with an illustration: let’s suppose that you notice some sort of health concern for your body, and so you go to a doctor. You listen to that doctor’s opinion, based on their experience practicing medicine, and you act accordingly: if you believe the doctor, you follow their advice; but, if you don’t believe that they’re correct, you seek a second opinion… and a third, and fourth, until you receive a diagnosis that you consider to be correct. It’s a bit of a dangerous game: the doctors have the medical knowledge, not you, but you have to judge – to the best of your ability – whether their opinions pass the ‘smell test’.
But, let’s suppose that something extraordinary happens: let’s say that God pronounces that a particular doctor’s office is protected by Him from making erroneous statements about medical diagnoses. What would you do then? When that office said “you have cancer”, there’d be no doubt about it, by virtue of the fact that
God Himself protects that doctor’s diagnosis. You could, of course, say “I don’t believe that God is protecting this doctor”, and go for a second opinion, but that would be a statement of a completely different caliber. However, if you believe in God and in the statement of the ‘protection from diagnostic error’, then there’s no reason to say “I need a second opinion.”
(There’s another dimension to this example, incidentally: let’s suppose that this doctor says “the Pittsburgh Penguins will win the Stanley Cup”. Would that statement, too, be protected from error? No – since the protection covers only diagnostic statements. What about a statement along the lines of “for optimum health, people should eat a spoonful of arsenic a day”? No, that wouldn’t be protected, either – since, although in the realm of nutrition, it’s not a diagnostic statement, and only diagnostic statements are covered.)
In a way, that’s what’s in play here: the Church has been given the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals, and so, when they make a doctrinal statement, the question of whether the statement is correct or not isn’t in doubt. (In contrast to the ‘doctor’ example, though, the Church also has
authority to make statements that aren’t covered by infallibility, but which call on us, as Catholics, to assent to its teaching.)
(I’m wondering whether the things that you’re having problems with fall into this ‘outlying’ range of things that the Church may have done or said that aren’t matters of faith, morals, or authority. In that case, you may well have questions about these types of assertions or actions. But, if so, that wouldn’t cast doubt on the things that the Church actually
does have authority over or for which she
does have the charism of infallibility. In any case, we’re getting a little far afield.)
In any case, then, the notion of whether God is timeless falls within the Church’s realm of competency, authority, and infallibility. So, while I hear what you’re saying – that you want to make the decision yourself – it seems that you’re misunderstanding (or disbelieving) the Church’s ability to speak truthfully and authoritatively on the matter.
Blessings,
G.
