First of all, what do you mean by “any of these denominations”? The two denominations I’m involved with (my wife and I go to one church on Saturday evening and one on Sunday morning), the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church, are often criticized by other Christians for being too doctrinally vague and uncertain. I suspect that you are generalizing on the basis of a very narrow experience–forgive me if I am wrong.
And how exactly does one give a “sense” that one is
not absolutely certain? Given the rarity of absolute certainty about anything, I would not assume that people are absolutely certain unless they claim to be. As Aquinas put it, in questions of faith the will gives certainty to what is (intellectually speaking) a probable opinion. In other words, I have good reasons for believing X, and I perceive it to be good, so I choose to adhere to it firmly. In that sense I am “certain.” I don’t go around saying “well, I think Jesus rose from the dead but of course it may be that He didn’t.” I base my life on the belief that He did. But I can’t give demonstrative reasons for it.
The Catholic Church makes much broader and firmer doctrinal claims than most Protestant denominations do today. (Confessional Lutherans and Reformed are another matter–to belong to one of those churches one often has to subscribe to very detailed confessions of faith.) If I had to subscribe to every assertion in the 39 Articles in order to be an Episcopalian, I’m not sure I could go on being one. Certainly it would at best be a toss-up whether I agreed more with the Articles or with Catholic doctrine. But as it stands, the only thing I’m asked to subscribe to firmly is the Nicene Creed. So there’s no contradiction in someone leaving the Catholic Church because they can’t in good conscience subscribe to, say, the Immaculate Conception (which the Catholic Church requires all Catholics to believe), and becoming an Anglican even though they still believe in transubstantiation (which is rejected by the 39 Articles but obviously compatible with the Nicene Creed). Of course, most choices about church membership don’t proceed on this basis–nor should they. Church membership is primarily a matter of trust. But the same issue applies. It is in a sense easier to “trust” Protestant denominations precisely because they don’t ask for anywhere near as much trust as the Catholic Church does.
First of all, if one really wanted to one could raise questions about the early lists of bishops and whether the historic succession is really beyond all possible doubt. But more importantly, the doctrinal significance of that succession is not something you can prove beyond the possibility of doubt(you can give arguments for it, of course). You choose to adhere firmly to the Church, and there is nothing wrong or irrational about that. You have good reasons for doing so. But there remains an element of choice–it is not simply a matter of absolute rational proof.
From several places where he discusses the matter–when I wrote a paper on this in grad school I used the Commentary on the Sentences and maybe the Disputed Questions on Faith (that would have been a logical source to use, but it was a long time ago and I don’t have the paper in front of me, so I don’t remember for sure), but the Summa Theologiae gives his view in
brief:
Of course Aquinas’s views are not necessarily binding on Catholics. But I am fairly sure that on this particular point (as on many others) Aquinas speaks for the mainstream of Catholic thought. I’m certainly interested in seeing any evidence to the contrary you care to produce.
If you don’t “mean disrespect,” then you should not caricature the views of people you are talking to in such an irresponsible way. Obviously I never suggested for a moment that any of these things are “silly matters.” Your suggestion that I did degrades the tone of this conversation considerably.
Edwin
