Priests, the truth and a hypothetical

[Sherlock]

zachattack05:

True. But if you are constantly told “the Church is right” from when you were a child not many people will go and check things. If I was a true believer I wouldn’t check anything. If we should read our own Bible and our Catechism, that suggests that we are allowed to interpret it on our own to try to find out if what the Priest is saying is true. I didn’t think that was a good idea…it sounds like a Protestant viewpoint there. Do you see where I am coming from with that? Maybe I just don’t understand what you are saying?

And my question then is…how do we know when they are making mistakes?

We are called to love God with all of our hearts, mind, and soul. Surely a person who desires to do so is not going to be content only with what he or she gets from their priest at Mass. I was told from my childhood that the Church was right, but that didn’t mean I believed it—I did check it out. I just don’t think that the average person is that isolated that they only get their information from one priest. If they truly are living in the jungles of Batswaanaland and have such a priest, God is not going to hold THEM accountable for the priest’s sins. I just don’t see this as an effective argument against apostolic succession.

 

[javelin]

zachattack05:

Javelin,

I guess I can kind of see where you are coming from. I am going to kinda think out loud here and see if I can make any sense of this at all. Tell me if you notice a flaw in my thinking or understanding.

In order to understand the reason why we can be sure the Catholic Church is correct on doctrine we need to understand infallibility.

Now, infallibility comes because Christ said that Hell would never overcome his church, because he said that there must be a way for Christ to communicate with the Church, and I guess because humans are kinda thickheaded sometimes they need to actually hear it from someone. Hence the Pope? He’s there to communicate the will of God?

I guess my question then is this:

Hmmm…Looking at everything from a strictly historical point of view for a moment, we would not know that the Bible, the Church, and those documents that we base our beliefs on are true.

So…I guess what I am curious to know is…how do we know those documents are true? I think I heard the argument once…but I can’t remember it. I think it went like this:

The Bible (purely as a historical document) stated that Christ lived. We know he did from valid historical documents. We also know that he spoke to people, and he called them Apostles. We know from other valid history records that these people existed. The Apostles claimed to write things (the things in the Bible) and well…that’s as much as I can remember. Any additions?

I guess what I am getting at is this:

The office of the Pope can not be infallible unless we know it is infallible for sure. Where does that knowledge come from? It can’t come from the Pope. He can’t declare the office to be infallible. If he did, we are no different than protestants who claim the Bible can prove it’s own infallibility. It can’t. If all it takes is someone saying “This office is infallible” and the Bible “this is the Word of God” then what stops me or anyone else from just saying “this post on this message board is the Word of God…now go listen to what it says!”

Thoughts?

At this point, I really think you should read through all the documents on these two pages. They will give you a good foundation of Scriptural and historical evidence for the Catholic position.

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

If you are discussing with atheists you need to take a different approach than with mainline protestant Christians. Huge difference. With Christians you have commonalities to build on, such as the divinity of Christ and the inerrancy of the Bible. That being the case, most Catholic apologists work extensively from the Scriptures, since protestants view it authoritatively.

If you read through the documents above, you will see the scriptural evidence outlined for Catholic belief in the establishment of the Church, the papacy, apostolic succession, and infallibility. It essentially stems from promises made by Jesus (whom we know will keep His promises), and the action and structure of the early Church, whose leaders learned directly from Christ.

More than that, I don’t think I can really help you. If after reading the tracts above (they’re not very long – you could easily do it in a couple hours) you have more specific questions, please post them here.

Happy reading! They are well worth the time!

Peace,
javelin

 

[zachattack05]

Sherlock:

We are called to love God with all of our hearts, mind, and soul. Surely a person who desires to do so is not going to be content only with what he or she gets from their priest at Mass. I was told from my childhood that the Church was right, but that didn’t mean I believed it—I did check it out. I just don’t think that the average person is that isolated that they only get their information from one priest. If they truly are living in the jungles of Batswaanaland and have such a priest, God is not going to hold THEM accountable for the priest’s sins. I just don’t see this as an effective argument against apostolic succession.

Me either, but I didn’t and kinda still don’t, know how to approach it.

 

[javelin]

zachattack05:

I know my answer as well. But I guess what protestants would say is this: "Who cares who hands you a Bible or reads it to you or who wrote the commentary in their Bible. The fact is they got the Bible and once they got it they understand it, or can understand it, on their own.

I don’t buy that…but how do you argue with that?

With simple logic. If every person honestly seeking Christ in the Bible in inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand it correctly, why is there so much dispute among Christians about what the Bible really means? There are Christian sects who don’t even believe the Bible says Jesus is God. To presume that you happen to be the “one” that the Holy Spirit is speaking to, while everyone else is being duped, or that their faith is not as strong, or whatever, is incredibly presumptuous, IMHO.

The Bible says Christ established ONE Church. Is that what we have today, in Christianity as a whole?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Paris_Blues]

zachattack05:

I was talking with my girlfriend yesterday who is Protestant. I had worked out a very strong (or what I thought was a very strong) argument in favour of Apostolic Tradition. I was ready to take on any verse that was flung at me, I knew it all I thought. But she brought up a very good hypothetical situation that involves priests to which I had no answer to. I would appreciate some help in explaining this, not just because she wants to know, but I do as well.

For the sake of argument, let me suggest that there is a Catholic church in a town. Let’s also assume that there is a priest there who has his own agenda. He might teach a few things that the Catholic Church believes, but there are times when he (either privately or in mass) states things that are not in line with the Church’s views, either scripturally or Traditionally. Basically he is a heretic in priest’s clothing. How are those people in the Church, supposed to know what the difference is between the truth the priest gives and his own interpretation or psudo-truth?

The reason I find this to be interesting is because it has actually happened to me. I went through RCIA and the priest who helped us had many things to say that…well…didn’t line up with Catholic beliefs, and I wouldn’t have known any better unless I questioned it and went online here and found out the truth. But assuming that I can’t go online…how, if the Church is supposed to be the pillar of truth, can someone do such a thing?

I know the arguments that say the one or many priests will never bring the Church down, but if I am attending a mass by a priest that is in error, how am I supposed to know that what he is telling me is in error? Is it my job as a Catholic to constantly question everything a priest says and to verify it?

I’m not sure if I am explaining this question right…I guess a simpler way to sum it up would be, why should we put so much faith in something where there is a chance that (even though it won’t bring down the church) what someone is saying will be wrong because they have their own personal agendas? And what happens if we believe it?

I probably totally failed to ask this correctly…but any help thus far would be great!

WATCH EWTN!!!

It teaches Truth! It will help you discern. It has helped me discern too.

 

[javelin]

zachattack05:

Me either, but I didn’t and kinda still don’t, know how to approach it.

Honestly, the bottom line is that on a week to week basis, from service to service, Catholics have no better assurance that what our pastor is teaching us is true than most protestants.

What Catholics DO have that is CRUCIAL, is an apostolic deposit of faith to draw from that we KNOW to be True. If we don’t know how to access it, or learn from it, that is a problem with catechesis, not a problem with the teaching itself.

Protestants have nothing except their own experience and their pastor’s word. They assume that he was taught correctly when he learned how to be a pastor, and that he passes that on to them. Some protestant churches have councils of elders or whatever that people can appeal to if they have concerns about their local pastor, but nothing as historical and constant as the Catholic Church’s Deposit of Faith. The Presbyterians even waffle on abortion, of all things!

God does not waffle – the Truth never changes.

Peace,
javelin

 

[john_ennis]

There doesn’t seem to be any chain of logic to your girlfriend’s assumption that, since a priest can mislead, then the Catholic Church’s doctrines (Tradition) are not trustworthy. The one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Now, as to whether, since the Church’s Traditions are passed down by men, they’re prone to mistakes…THAT is no more certain than that the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, et al, being written by men, are thus prone to errors as well.
In both cases, it depends on whether God prevents error, or not. The Bible says that the Apostles taught the Word even before there was a New Testament; it’s reasonable to think that the Church was able to continue teaching in that way, since the New Testament (complete and identifiable) didn’t exist for centuries. The early Christians verify this–that the Apostolic teaching continued, and was trustworthy (as when Iraneaus in the second century said that the Church in Rome was the one with which all churches must agree).

Peace.
John

 

[zachattack05]

javelin:

With simple logic. If every person honestly seeking Christ in the Bible in inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand it correctly, why is there so much dispute among Christians about what the Bible really means? There are Christian sects who don’t even believe the Bible says Jesus is God. To presume that you happen to be the “one” that the Holy Spirit is speaking to, while everyone else is being duped, or that their faith is not as strong, or whatever, is incredibly presumptuous, IMHO.

The Bible says Christ established ONE Church. Is that what we have today, in Christianity as a whole?

Peace,
javelin

I guess the argument would be that the “essentials” exist among all the faiths. What that means…I don’t know. I had this exact argument 2 nights ago on this point exactly. I brought up exactly what you did and I was told that what the Holy Spirit tells us is the same, the “extra” or “differences” are just junk. At least that’s how I perceived her argument. Of course that’s rediculous! I just don’t know what to say to that which I haven’t already said. I even asked her what are the “extras” and she gave the example of confession and demanded I show in the Bible where that is mandated. I showed the “whatever you bind on earth…” verses but she demands that while that power may have been given to those small groups of people (if it even was) that it was only given to them and no one else. I’ve even heard arguements that the whole verse is not being said to just the Apostles but is directed towards readers of the Bible. How crazy is that?

 

[zachattack05]

javelin:

What Catholics DO have that is CRUCIAL, is an apostolic deposit of faith to draw from that we KNOW to be True. If we don’t know how to access it, or learn from it, that is a problem with catechesis, not a problem with the teaching itself.

True, I agree. What I can see coming from that though is how do we KNOW it is true? I have read the documents on Tradition and Scripture already (I did that in preparation for what I was going to talk about with my girlfriend, but I haven’t read about the Church and the Papacy. I’ll do that tonight or as soon as I can.

javelin:

Protestants have nothing except their own experience and their pastor’s word. They assume that he was taught correctly when he learned how to be a pastor, and that he passes that on to them. Some protestant churches have councils of elders or whatever that people can appeal to if they have concerns about their local pastor, but nothing as historical and constant as the Catholic Church’s Deposit of Faith. The Presbyterians even waffle on abortion, of all things!

God does not waffle – the Truth never changes.

Peace,
javelin

I completely agree! But I can see the rebuttal coming! We assume that our Priest was taught correctly, that the Bishop is really working for God and that the Pope isn’t totally crazy or going to mislead the Church.

I guess what the heart of the argument is boiling down to is not the Truth. Because the Truth is constant, like you said it never changes. But determining the Truth and being able to truely know that what the Church is saying is the Truth is the argument. There needs to be some basis on which the Church determines the Truth. How was doctrine determined? Is the Catechism the oral Traditions now written down? Are the oral Traditions from the Apostles now written down? If so, where are they and when were they written? Is the Catechism and Doctrine the same thing? Some of these are questions that just popped in my head and others I can see coming up the next time I talk with her.

P.S. – Thank you all so VERY much for your help! This really is not just helping me to help her and possibly others understand, but it is also building up my faith and the more and more we talk, the more and more I feel closer and closer to understanding myself. Thank you so much!

 

[javelin]

zachattack05:

I guess the argument would be that the “essentials” exist among all the faiths. What that means…I don’t know. I had this exact argument 2 nights ago on this point exactly. I brought up exactly what you did and I was told that what the Holy Spirit tells us is the same, the “extra” or “differences” are just junk.

Is the deity of Christ as essential? The trinity? The meaning of Baptism? None of those are consistently learned from Scripture, and all are areas of disagreement among self-described Christians. Can she give you a difinitive list of the essentials, backed up with where that definitive list is in the Bible? What if people disagree on what the essentials are? Are we really expected to use collective divination on the Bible, then find the lowest common denominator of doctrine, to discern the Truth about Jesus? That sounds like what she is saying. Or else the Truth changes for each individual?

Sounds like a mess to me.

If there really are “essentials” that every Christian would know from the Bible alone, she should be able to produce for you a list of what they are, and where they are “plainly” taught in the Bible. There should also be something that says they are essential, while other things are not.

Can she do that? I doubt it.

Peace,
javelin

 

[zachattack05]

javelin:

Is the deity of Christ as essential? The trinity? The meaning of Baptism? None of those are consistently learned from Scripture, and all are areas of disagreement among self-described Christians. Can she give you a difinitive list of the essentials, backed up with where that definitive list is in the Bible? What if people disagree on what the essentials are? Are we really expected to use collective divination on the Bible, then find the lowest common denominator of doctrine, to discern the Truth about Jesus? That sounds like what she is saying. Or else the Truth changes for each individual?

Sounds like a mess to me.

If there really are “essentials” that every Christian would know from the Bible alone, she should be able to produce for you a list of what they are, and where they are “plainly” taught in the Bible. There should also be something that says they are essential, while other things are not.

Can she do that? I doubt it.

Peace,
javelin

I’ll be sure to ask her, but if I recall correctly, she listed 5. Let me see if I can remember them:
1)Faith in Christ
2)Praying to God and to Christ
3)Following the 10 commandments of God
4)Reading the Bible…and something else about that but I can’t remember
5)I can’t remember.

I’ll ask her tonight to take a few minutes and just write them down for me. I don’t know if she will, I think I am a terrible apologetic…I seem to just make her mad when we talk…I think she thinks I get this attitude that she’s going to hell and I’m out trying to save her soul. I guess there is a little truth to that, but more than that I am just trying to explain where I’m coming from and why Catholics believe what they believe. I think she just takes it kinda personally. I’ll see about that list.

 

[javelin]

zachattack05:

I’ll be sure to ask her, but if I recall correctly, she listed 5. Let me see if I can remember them:
1)Faith in Christ
2)Praying to God and to Christ
3)Following the 10 commandments of God
4)Reading the Bible…and something else about that but I can’t remember
5)I can’t remember.

I don’t mean to just be sarcastic, but if personal reading of the Bible were an essential part of salvation, then all Christians were in pretty bad shape until the first copies were made for personal distribution hundreds of years after Christ.

Ask her what she means by “faith in Christ”. If it is essential, and plain, then how it is defined should be consistent across all Christian churches.

The divinity of Christ is not on the list? Seems pretty crucial to me (of course, I’m not Mormon).

Peace,
javelin

 

[steve99]

zachattack05:

For the sake of argument, let me suggest that there is a Catholic church in a town. Let’s also assume that there is a priest there who has his own agenda. He might teach a few things that the Catholic Church believes, but there are times when he (either privately or in mass) states things that are not in line with the Church’s views, either scripturally or Traditionally. Basically he is a heretic in priest’s clothing. How are those people in the Church, supposed to know what the difference is between the truth the priest gives and his own interpretation or psudo-truth?

Here are some thoughts (and I probably be shot down for this).
I think someone could only be called a heretic if he/she contradicts an infallibly defined doctrine, of which there are not actually that many. The certainty of Church’s teaching is like the layers of an onion. At the core are infallibly defined doctrines/dogmas, and as you progress outwards the certainties get less, i.e. they become less absolute, with more room for theologians to speculate, or push the boundaries. Until at the outside the flaky skin are the various flaky “traditions” (with a small t) that people hold.
This is why the Church is very careful, and often takes centuries before making an infallible defiinition. So much of the teaching is our best understanding. That does not mean such can just be dismissed because is has not been infallibly defined. For example JPII did not make any infallible pronouncement, but his encyclicals carry the weight not just of his office, but the centuries of thought that preceeded them. So my point is that it would depend on exactly what the priest concerned was questioning.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I guess there is a little truth to that, but more than that I am just trying to explain where I’m coming from and why Catholics believe what they believe. I think she just takes it kinda personally. I’ll see about that list.

I don’t think I am the best apologist either, but I have learned a few things over the years.

Be sure to never take one step back when it comes to the teachings of the Church in order to placate or make someone feel good. Also, never let any apology become personal attacks. Stand firm in the Faith and you would be suprised how well it works! You’ll never get a conversion overnight but you will get people thinking-that is what you want.

 

[zachattack05]

Someone should write a difinitive guide on how to be an apologist and publish it online. That would be tons of help. This web site has been more help than any place.

 

[javelin]

steve99:

I think someone could only be called a heretic if he/she contradicts an infallibly defined doctrine, of which there are not actually that many.

This is a helpful listing of Catholic dogma:

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

disclaimer: the list is not necessarily definitive

If you check it out, it’s really not that small. There is quite a bit of theological meat there.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Paris_Blues]

zachattack05:

*]They do not know Church history (at least all of it). If they did they would have located the documents that support the Catholic Faith and not protestantism.
*]100% of the protestant faiths are creations of human beings, humans with error.
*]It’s comfortable. Being a protestant puts you in control of what is important and not important in your salvation. Unfortunately it doesn’t work that way.

Actually, I’ve been told by Protestants that they HAVE looked into Church history but I guess they didn’t get it because they still thought Protestantism was better than the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!

They’ll say something like, "well, I looked into Church history and there’s so much error within the CC…"dada dada, etc.

I hate to say this but I think it’s because they want to be in the church where they will be “saved” but I don’t know for sure.

 

[zachattack05]

Paris Blues:

I hate to say this but I think it’s because they want to be in the church where they will be “saved” but I don’t know for sure.

I don’t know for sure either. It could just be that they look back into history of THEIR church as well. They don’t fully investigate the history of the Catholic Church. If they do, they just refuse to believe it. That isn’t their fault on some levels I guess…I mean, if you are told something long enough (even if it’s wrong) you believe it and when you start hearing things against it, you start fighting for it even if your argument is weak. People hate to be wrong about anything.

 

[javelin]

Remember, too, that history is often told in books that are written from a certain point of view. Remember that the reformation had its first hold in Germany, which also happened to be where the first printing presses came from. The reformers had both government and propaganda on their side. Thus, much of the written information dispersed during the first century of the reformation was decidedly from a reformed perspective. To add to that, I imagine most history books that are written now and used in protestant seminaries. Their idea of learning Church history is finding about about the bad popes, multiple popes, the Crusades, and the Inquisition.

I have an aquaintance who is a pastor. His major area of study when he got his ministry degree was church history, and he admittedly knows nothing about Catholic doctrine. So there are some that don’t even look at the Catholic Church’s real history.

Peace,
javelin

 

[zachattack05]

javelin:

I have an aquaintance who is a pastor. His major area of study when he got his ministry degree was church history, and he admittedly knows nothing about Catholic doctrine. So there are some that don’t even look at the Catholic Church’s real history.

Peace,
javelin

I wonder what the drop out rate would be if they thoroughly looked at it? I would imagine quite high? That’s kinda sad that they don’t require them to know the history of all churches…the full history.