Non-Catholics: Does your pastor preach this: Where the Scriptures are Silent, We Should Be Silent"?

[PRmerger]

I’m being picky but being capable of being wrong does not necessarily mean that you will be wrong.

Let’s take your pastor, exnihilo. When I say that he is a fallible man I don’t think he or you would take offense at that, right?

So you’re saying that in his preaching, every Sunday, while he is “capable” of being wrong, it’s possible that he’s* never *going to be wrong?

And even if this were to be true (which I doubt that you’re going to affirm), knowing that he’s a fallible preacher ought to put a speck of skepticism in your thoughts with each thing he proclaims–you know that he’s capable of being wrong. Is it this time that he’s going to be? What about this next utterance? Is that correct or is that the one time he’s going to demonstrate his fallibility?

Now, of course, our Catholic priests, too, are fallible. So you would be fair to point out that we in the pews of our Catholic parishes ought to be “testing everything” that he says as well. HOWEVER, the cushion that we Catholics have is that we have the assurance that when he says something that is contrary to the INFALLIBLE interpreter and guardian of Scripture, he is wrong.

We need not be worried that we’re following a fallible preacher.

 

[Newsy]

Each successive Pope has less “lateral movement”. Any teaching must be in accord with the previous teachings. The farther we are from Peter, the more has been covered, and the less the Pope can pronounce judgement on. The person is never perfect, it is the office that is guaranteed to teach perfectly. The Pope may have wrong opinions about many things, but he will not teach error with regard to Faith and Morals. I have not done any research on it, but I have read there are very few ex cathedra statements.

 

[PRmerger]

IAs you point out the institution of the Church had to be infallible in compiling the Bible -]and the authors had to be infallible for the the principle of ‘Where the Scripture is silent…’ principle to be valid/-]. So anyone who holds this principle must accept that infallibility in humans can and has occurred.

And this is a HUGE admission, if a non-Catholic Christian were to be so intellectually and spiritually honest as to acknowledge this. For it firstly acknowledges that they cannot be an advocate of Sola Scriptura. And they acknowledge that there is such a thing as the Church being given the charism of infallibility.

(The scratched out phrase is a non-sequitur, IMHO. Not sure why that’s a conclusion to you.)

I can see some appeal to belonging to a church that does not claim to be fallible because that is consistent with human nature. It can also seem humble. But it does leave the possibility of teaching error. I would think the ideal would be to be a member of a church that is in fact infallible. But the problem is we humans like to ourselves determine what is infallible based on our judgement. But what else do we have to go by? If I became a member of the Catholic Church would it not be because I determined, by my own judgment, that it was the true, infallible church?

Actually, I don’t think so, exnihilo. You would be using the Scriptures to confirm that the Church is an infallible Church. (See this post for "The Infallibility of the Church proved from Scripture: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6117541&postcount=1692)

 

[exnihilo]

Let’s take your pastor, exnihilo. When I say that he is a fallible man I don’t think he or you would take offense at that, right?

So you’re saying that in his preaching, every Sunday, while he is “capable” of being wrong, it’s possible that he’s* never *going to be wrong?

No, neither of us would disagree or take offense.

Yes he is capable of being wrong. As for never going to be wrong I dont know that I would say that. My original post was considering a certain time frame and limited circumstances. In a person’s whole life they will probably be wrong at some point. But in any given length of time they may not be.

And even if this were to be true (which I doubt that you’re going to affirm), knowing that he’s a fallible preacher ought to put a speck of skepticism in your thoughts with each thing he proclaims–you know that he’s capable of being wrong. Is it this time that he’s going to be? What about this next utterance? Is that correct or is that the one time he’s going to demonstrate his fallibility?

Yes, I would never know when he is going to be wrong.

Now, of course, our Catholic priests, too, are fallible. So you would be fair to point out that we in the pews of our Catholic parishes ought to be “testing everything” that he says as well. HOWEVER, the cushion that we Catholics have is that we have the assurance that when he says something that is contrary to the INFALLIBLE interpreter and guardian of Scripture, he is wrong.

We need not be worried that we’re following a fallible preacher.

When you say you need not be worried it seems like there is more explanation needed. Do you mean for your salvation? That is if the priest leads you wrongly and you follow your salvation is not in jeopardy? It seems to me we all naturally ‘worry’ that we are doing what is truly right. So in a sense we would worry by comparing what we believe to be true with what we are taught.

And this is a HUGE admission, if a non-Catholic Christian were to be so intellectually and spiritually honest as to acknowledge this. For it firstly acknowledges that they cannot be an advocate of Sola Scriptura. And they acknowledge that there is such a thing as the Church being given the charism of infallibility.

I think Sola Scriptura, as espoused by many people, is baseless and problematic. Yes I think one has to accept the Church was given the charism of infallibility at some point. I think this destroys many Protestant doctrines.

 

[PRmerger]

When you say you need not be worried it seems like there is more explanation needed. Do you mean for your salvation?

Not exactly. I would worry that a fallible man is not proclaiming truth. Truth is what matters, no?

That is if the priest leads you wrongly and you follow your salvation is not in jeopardy? It seems to me we all naturally ‘worry’ that we are doing what is truly right. So in a sense we would worry by comparing what we believe to be true with what we are taught.

I never think in terms of “will this affect my salvation”. My paradigm is: I do not judge myself. I may not be aware of anything against me, but that does not mean I am acquitted. It is the Lord Who judges.

I think Sola Scriptura, as espoused by many people, is baseless and problematic.

Yes I think one has to accept the Church was given the charism of infallibility at some point. I think this destroys many Protestant doctrines.

Yes, it does raze many Protestant preconceptions.

And, I will have to add that if you believe the Church was given the charism of infallibility regarding discerning the canon of Scripture, you will have to acknowledge that it wasn’t just at “some” point, but at multiple points. To wit:

• in the 4th century at the Council of Rome in 382,
• re-affirmed and confirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393,
• the Councils of Carthage in 397
• and 419,
• Second Council of Nicea in 787,
• Council of Florence 1442
• and finally dogmatically proclaimed at the Council of Trent in 1546.

 

[Red_in_205]

Simply because a text says that it’s going to be “guided unto all truth” does not make it true though, right?

Doesn’t the Koran make a similar proclamation about its inspiration?

You’re right. That is a form of circular reasoning.

At any rate, our Church also claims to be “guided unto all truth” so why do you believe John but not the Church?

And that still leaves Matthew, Mark and Luke–you want to say that their writings were infallible, but not the men. Okay. So why can’t we apply it to the writings of JPII. Why can’t his writings be infallible, like M, M and L, but he as a man not?

I find it easier to believe that people who actually spoke with Jesus, lived with him for years at a time, and were present at the key events of his life as well as Pentecost are capable of being perfect messengers of his teachings than a person who never knew him in the Earthly sense living 2000 years later. Then again, that could call into question the authority of certain N.T. books. You’ve given me a lot to think about here.

Yes, Red. Cardinals are part of the Magisterium.

I didn’t even know that. This is why I’m glad to have an anonymous forum where I can ask about these things. I’m going to read the link that was posted earlier to learn more about it.

If you understand it this way, does “the Catholic Church is infallible” seem more palatable to you?

That would still be a very, very hard thing for me to accept. That said, I’ve learned not to put limits on what God might convince me of. I obviously have my reasons to be learning more about the RCC.

As I’ve learned and thought more about my faith, I’ve come to believe that many of the things that religious leaders taught me as a boy were wrong. Even so, I still consider many of those people to role models. It’s hard for me to hold a normal human failing against them. I’ve been to several different types of churches, and I have yet to find one where 100% of even the most faithful members totally conformed to that church’s creed or statement of faith in every detail. I’ve always regarded that as a natural and even healthy expression of liberty rather than a serious failure of those churches. I’ve studied and found that some of the conclusions I once reached on my own were just plain wrong. I’ve had disagreemnts with people who I could not convince, and they could not convince me, and we walked away with a sense of humility and respect for one another’s opinions. It’s obvious that even the best Christian leaders who spend their entire lives studying these issues and praying for guidance don’t always come to agreement. I hope you can understand why it’s tough for me to buy into the teaching that any person, or group of people, can claim to be the exclusive spokespersons of God, and that I must completely accept their teachings, regardless of whether or not I am actually convinced by their arguments. To me, this seems like abandoning my own personal responsibility to decide for myself what I think is true and handing those decisions to other people who are just as human and fallible as myself.

You’re welcome to stay as along as you like!

Thanks! I don’t want to derail this any more than I have, so I’m going to take it to other threads like the “Ask A Catholic” thread.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t believe the “phrase” is ruling out the use and belief in oral traditions…just that they cannot be made to be a condition of salvation when scripture is silent on such matters.

Hi Pub, Before of Forget Merry Christmas, my best to you and your family.

Now back to your comment, how can you say that you are not ruling out the use of Oral Traditions when it is indeed scripture only given in the Oral form. Its not silent on any matters that I can think of.

As a matter of fact look at the first book of the bible, God said we were put here to multiply. How can you do that if you use the birth control pill?

God says not to worry about what you will wear, or eat if he can feed the birds, what do you think he will do for you?

But back to my point, All we need to know is in the Oral and Written word of God. IT was passed down from the beginning of Christ. It will never be lost.

Christ promised us that the Advocate would be send to the CC on the day of Pentecost. It happened, the Holy Spirit is still there, and God kept his promises. The Advocate is still teaching through The Pope, and Bishops, but thats the way Jesus always did it.

 

[rinnie]

You’re right. That is a form of circular reasoning.

I find it easier to believe that people who actually spoke with Jesus, lived with him for years at a time, and were present at the key events of his life as well as Pentecost are capable of being perfect messengers of his teachings than a person who never knew him in the Earthly sense living 2000 years later. Then again, that could call into question the authority of certain N.T. books. You’ve given me a lot to think about here.

I didn’t even know that. This is why I’m glad to have an anonymous forum where I can ask about these things. I’m going to read the link that was posted earlier to learn more about it.

That would still be a very, very hard thing for me to accept. That said, I’ve learned not to put limits on what God might convince me of. I obviously have my reasons to be learning more about the RCC.

As I’ve learned and thought more about my faith, I’ve come to believe that many of the things that religious leaders taught me as a boy were wrong. Even so, I still consider many of those people to role models. It’s hard for me to hold a normal human failing against them. I’ve been to several different types of churches, and I have yet to find one where 100% of even the most faithful members totally conformed to that church’s creed or statement of faith in every detail. I’ve always regarded that as a natural and even healthy expression of liberty rather than a serious failure of those churches. I’ve studied and found that some of the conclusions I once reached on my own were just plain wrong. I’ve had disagreemnts with people who I could not convince, and they could not convince me, and we walked away with a sense of humility and respect for one another’s opinions. It’s obvious that even the best Christian leaders who spend their entire lives studying these issues and praying for guidance don’t always come to agreement. I hope you can understand why it’s tough for me to buy into the teaching that any person, or group of people, can claim to be the exclusive spokespersons of God, and that I must completely accept their teachings, regardless of whether or not I am actually convinced by their arguments. To me, this seems like abandoning my own personal responsibility to decide for myself what I think is true and handing those decisions to other people who are just as human and fallible as myself.

Thanks! I don’t want to derail this any more than I have, so I’m going to take it to other threads like the “Ask A Catholic” thread.

Hi Red, I have a quick question, If you do n’t beleive there could be exclusive spokespersons of God then what do you do with the entire bible, Starting with Adam ending with the future leaders?

I mean did you accept the truth of Abraham? Moses? Then Christ? Then how could you accept their truth but then deny the truth promised to the CC by the Advocate the Holy Spirit??

I mean the bible itself states that the Holy Spirit would appear to the Church, and it DID on on the day of Pentecost and would teach in his name until the end of age.

So how can you trust Abraham, Moses, etc if you do, and then turn around and deny the Advocate that was promised to us to give you the fullness of the truth??

 

[Red_in_205]

Hi Red, I have a quick question, If you do n’t beleive there could be exclusive spokespersons of God then what do you do with the entire bible, Starting with Adam ending with the future leaders?

I’m really not trying to be obtuse here, but I have a hard time understanding your questions. Could you rephrase them?

To say what I was trying to get across earlier a little bit more clearly: I can only speak for myself, but I have never personally met anyone who I thought was so perfectly divinely guided that I should simply accept his opinion as the final authority on any theological matter. I hope you can at least see where I’m coming from when I say that I find it easier to accept authoritative teachings from the apostle John, who performed miracles, had visions directly from God, personally knew Jesus and was present throughout his ministry, etc. than I would from a local bishop.

 

[Newsy]

I’m really not trying to be obtuse here, but I have a hard time understanding your questions. Could you rephrase them?

To say what I was trying to get across earlier a little bit more clearly: I can only speak for myself, but I have never personally met anyone who I thought was so perfectly divinely guided that I should simply accept his opinion as the final authority on any theological matter. I hope you can at least see where I’m coming from when I say that I find it easier to accept authoritative teachings from the apostle John, who performed miracles, had visions directly from God, personally knew Jesus and was present throughout his ministry, etc. than I would from a local bishop.

Do you think that John was able to do those things of his own accord? Was God guiding him? Do you think that John taught anyone in error? John gave us the most sacramental Gospel account, but I doubt he was a great theological mind, I believe he was guided by God, through the Holy Spirit. Paul, who never studied under Christ, did many miracles and taught without error. Paul was guided by God through the Holy Spirit. So, what does this tell us? One doesn’t have to study under Christ to be divinely led and teach without error. Why is inerrant teaching limited to the Apostles? The Church gave us the Canon of Scripture, do you think they were right? If so, they were led by God in the late 300’s. The Church pronounced dogmatically that Christ was fully God and fully man, do you think they were right? If so, that was decreed in 431ad at Ephesus.

Stating that the Church teaches without error is much different than saying the Church is perfect. The Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners as much as a museum of Saints.

What would the criteria be to teach without error? IF, the Catholic Church is led by God in all matters of faith, would it be possible for them to teach in error?

 

[graceandglory]

What part of the word “Silent” do you not understand? You are right that the Bible says nothing about artificial birth control. Therefore, because the Bible expresses no clear position on the matter (it is “silent”) the church can express no clear authoritative opinion on the matter (it is “silent”). It is a matter of conscience for the Christian to decide “in the light of God’s Word.”

God’s word clearly condemns murder. It is not a matter for the Christian to work out for himself. Therefore, the church is not “silent” on abortion. It must clearly condemn it.

So sad.

 

[PRmerger]

I find it easier to believe that people who actually spoke with Jesus, lived with him for years at a time, and were present at the key events of his life as well as Pentecost are capable of being perfect messengers of his teachings than a person who never knew him in the Earthly sense living 2000 years later. Then again, that could call into question the authority of certain N.T. books. You’ve given me a lot to think about here.

Indeed. And bear in mind that we do not know the authorship of Hebrews–and thus if you use the criterion that for something to be infallibly written, it has to be authored by someone who “actually spoke with Jesus and lived with him for years at a time”, then you’d have to exclude that book, yes?

 

[Red_in_205]

This is a lot to think about, and like I said, I don’t want to derail this thread too badly. You’ve made some really good points I’m going to have to look into further.

There’s a big emotional barrier between me and the acceptance of the infallibility of any church. It runs so contrary to key principles that I’ve structured my worldview around, such as the importance of investigating all claims, respect for the diversity of even the most educated points of view, and the idea that no one has the right to ask me to believe any idea based solely on their authority. On a really basic level, something in me doesn’t like the idea of being told that I must accept certain teachings simply because of the office of the person handing them down, and that I must accept those teachings whether or not I personally find them convincing. For some reason, it’s more palatable to me to accept the idea that people I will never meet because they belong to the distant past had that authority than it is to accept the idea that someone who could actually meet today might have that authority. I’ve never liked reasoning backwards from the idea that “this teaching must be true, so now let’s go find some justification for us to believe this teaching.”

On the plus side, you’re never really learning if you aren’t being challenged.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been to several different types of churches, and I have yet to find one where 100% of even the most faithful members totally conformed to that church’s creed or statement of faith in every detail. I’ve always regarded that as a natural and even healthy expression of liberty rather than a serious failure of those churches.

I don’t see it that way, Red. What it appears to me is if one does not conform oneself to the Church, then one is trying to find a church that conforms to one’s own image. And that is exactly backwards.

Shouldn’t it be that we find the Church that Jesus founded, and then conform ourselves and our views and our theology to that Church?

 

[PRmerger]

I hope you can understand why it’s tough for me to buy into the teaching that any person, or group of people, can claim to be the exclusive spokespersons of God,

Firstly, the CC does not claim to be the “exclusive spokespersons of God.”

Secondly, it seems that you actually do believe that you have bought into the teachings of some persons–namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, David, Moses…

So I’m not certain where your objection lies.

and that I must completely accept their teachings, regardless of whether or not I am actually convinced by their arguments.

Pope JPII expressed it best in his encyclical Fides et Ratio, when he describes the marriage between faith and reason. We are not commanded to accept things blindly on faith; rather we are to use our reason to contemplate the divine. However, we are not to use* only* reason.

To me, this seems like abandoning my own personal responsibility to decide for myself what I think is true and handing those decisions to other people who are just as human and fallible as myself.

Again, it seems that the humble thing for a Christian to do is to conform his view to Christ’s, not find a church that conforms to his own personal views.

 

[Red_in_205]

I don’t see it that way, Red. What it appears to me is if one does not conform oneself to the Church, then one is trying to find a church that conforms to one’s own image. And that is exactly backwards.

Shouldn’t it be that we find the Church that Jesus founded, and then conform ourselves and our views and our theology to that Church?

My take on this has always been that a person should do everything possible (pray, study, talk to others, etc.) to determine for himself or herself what the truth is, and then find the church that they consider to be closest to the truth. I think there is a very important difference between a person who goes to a church whose doctrine matches his or her best understanding of what is correct, and a person who goes to a church because they know the truth and want to disregard part of it, or because they never wanted to bother to investigate in the first place, or because they just don’t consider doctrine to be very important.

Even if the person decides “I’m going to agree with whatever the Catholic Church says” then didn’t that person have to go through a personal process of deciding for himself or herself that the RCC has that authority? Wouldn’t a person would have to determine exactly how important they believe apostolic succession to be in order to even begin at your starting point of “join the church that Jesus founded?” (BTW, literally every church, including the CoC churches that have been discussed so much in this thread, claim to be a continuation of the church that Jesus founded. It takes some studying to even sift through the worthiness of various claims to that title).

Again, it seems that the humble thing for a Christian to do is to conform his view to Christ’s,

Which raises the question of how we are to decide what Christ’s views were.

I feel that the reason for the diversity of opinion among Christians is more complex than a phenomenon of certain people just choosing to willingly disregard what is obviously true.

 

[PRmerger]

My take on this has always been that a person should do everything possible (pray, study, talk to others, etc.) to determine for himself or herself what the truth is, and then find the church that they consider to be closest to the truth.

I will have to respectfully say, then, that I think that this paradigm is a paradigm in which one creates a god in one’s own image. It’s creating a god that conforms to my own ideas.

Logic dictates that if there truly is a God, and a God who’s Numinous, and Divine and Other, then this God is going to command/proclaim things that are not in agreement with our own dispositions.

That is, He’s going to say things that are unpalatable, and difficult to understand, and disagreeable to our own sensibilities.

If we’re in a church that doesn’t cause us to change our own beliefs about something, then we’re in a church of our own making, Red. Not a church of God.

For example, I happen to want to be able to attend some of my best friends’ weddings. Unfortunately, God has proclaimed, much to my distaste, that they are not free to marry someone, as they are already married. That is, they cannot commit adultery by divorcing and re-marrying.

Much as I would love to celebrate with my friends and see this as their 2nd chance at happiness, I cannot. I have conformed my views to what God has decreed, not decided that “God really wouldn’t say something like that, because I really don’t like it. Therefore god wouldn’t like it either.”

 

[PRmerger]

Even if the person decides “I’m going to agree with whatever the Catholic Church says” then didn’t that person have to go through a personal process of deciding for himself or herself that the RCC has that authority? Wouldn’t a person would have to determine exactly how important they believe apostolic succession to be in order to even begin at your starting point of “join the church that Jesus founded?”

I get what you’re saying. And you are right that at some point someone is making a decision for herself that the church she belongs to is the church that has authority.

I happen to believe that historically there is only One Church that can trace its authority all the way back to the Apostles. (Eastern Orthodox, too, but that is fodder for a different thread.)

(BTW, literally every church, including the CoC churches that have been discussed so much in this thread, claim to be a continuation of the church that Jesus founded. It takes some studying to even sift through the worthiness of various claims to that title).

But none of them has any reasonable argument to support this. If you look at the churches in, say, the 11th century, how did they worship? History shows that it was a Catholic liturgy that the 11th century Christian celebrated.

Which raises the question of how we are to decide what Christ’s views were.

Exactly. How *do *you know that God is love? Who told you this? How do you know that Christ was born of a virgin? Who told you this?

I feel that the reason for the diversity of opinion among Christians is more complex than a phenomenon of certain people just choosing to willingly disregard what is obviously true.

Indeed. But I don’t believe anyone here was arguing that.

 

[Red_in_205]

Logic dictates that if there truly is a God, and a God who’s Numinous, and Divine and Other, then this God is going to command/proclaim things that are not in agreement with our own dispositions.
That is, He’s going to say things that are unpalatable, and difficult to understand, and disagreeable to our own sensibilities.

I agree with all of this. Using your example about weddings, a person who doesn’t care at all about Christianity would see nothing wrong with what you describe, but a person who has bothered to learn what the Bible and church tradition have to say about it sees that it is unacceptable. Even if that person had been taught in a church all of his or her life that second marriages were perfectly acceptable, that man or woman could challenge and overcome such erroneous teaching if he or she was willing to take personal responsibility to find out whether their church’s teachings were correct.

If we’re in a church that doesn’t cause us to change our own beliefs about something, then we’re in a church of our own making, Red. Not a church of God.

I feel as you think I’m arguing that I shouldn’t be bound by any teaching that inconveniences me or seems hard to accept at first glance. This isn’t my position at all. My position is that I should not be told that I must believe certain teachings even if I am not able to reach the conclusion that they are correct or truly apostolic. I don’t want another human being to tell me “You have come to believe that this is false, but I say that it is true. Any remaining reasons you have for believing that it is false are overruled by the simple fact that I’m the one saying it’s true.”

I’m going to stop making new posts about this now, read what people say in response, and drop the matter. I can promise that I’m going to do a lot of thinking, praying and studying about some of the excellent points that have brought up. I do enjoy being free to reach my own conclusions, learn new things that challenge those conclusions, and modify my beliefs accordingly. If I had not taken it upon myself to do so and instead chosen to simply accept the conclusions of the people who had authority over me at the time, I’d still believe certain things that both you and I agree aren’t correct at all. And I’d also be incapable of acknowledging that the RC posters here could very well be right, and I very well could be wrong.

 

[ricofall]

Well lets put it this way my Mom did it natural, and still had 5 kids. It is relying on God because you have 2 things going for you. You go to God to help you give up your desire at the moment, and when you give in to it you rely on his Grace to do his will not yours.

If you trust God completely you know that he will never give you more then you can handle.

But the reason NFP works is because you still have God in the picture. He is always the source of your help.

But NATURAL family planning is not the same as ARITIFICAL family planning. Do you see what I am saying?

LOL, When I read this, I was thinking that we could call our kids, “Organic Children. Raised with love, not chemicals.”