Thanks, Rob, from a slightly bashed Evangelical
.Rob,Thanks, Rob, from a slightly bashed Evangelical
I mostly agree with this, although “emotion” can be understood in different ways. Plus, people are wired in various ways when it comes to how they experience their emotions.
There is no contradiction in what the Holy Spirit discerns. Is that not how the canon was comprised to begin with? The Bishop of Rome didn’t compile it nor was he even supreme in it’s development. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were AND if I may say so, those two councils became part of the Orthodox church. You see, for me it’s not about trying to disprove your claim as a Catholic to your church being the one and only true Church, it’s about you showing me as a Protestant that it is and I haven’t seen that happen yet.
You haven’t answered the question. How do you know the Holy Spirit is guiding your interpretation and not someone else’s with an opposing interpretation?
Because of the deep abiding understanding that comes from the wisdom and discernment of the Holy Spirit. As a devout Christian and believer, you know that it’s not just someone’s fallible interpretation when the Holy Spirit moves in such a way.
This doesn’t explain why they are supposedly a correct interpretation of the Scriptures. Oneness Pentecostals, for example, do not believe in the Trinity aspect of the creeds, and yet they use Scripture to support their claim. Why is the creed correct and not them?
What makes them authoritative? Isn’t Scripture alone authoritative in the Lutheran church’s view? If not, then what qualifies any group or statement to be authoritative? If you say “well Scripture is the final authority but there can be other authorities which derive their authority from Scripture” then where does its authority come from when the question is about Scripture itself? Again I bring up the Oneness Pentecostal example.
Why? What makes them authoritative and correct?
I’m sorry, but I found no more unity with the Lutheran church than with any other Protestant denomination. I started at a Lutheran Church that was in communion with the Episcopal church, and saw no difference, and I dare say there was plenty of heresy there. I ended up on the complete other end of the Lutheran spectrum- with the WELS Lutherans, who I respect a great deal to this very day. Extremely conservative and grounded and…well, I could go on about them, but let’s just say they were the exact opposite of the first Lutheran Church I visited. That is not unity. And how the Lutheran Church “responded” to the heresy of the first branch I mentioned?..shrug… just split up into different groups.
Then why are two different Christians, who are both deeply devout, moved by the Holy Spirit in two different directions? One says there is a Trinity, three persons in one being, and another says there is no trinity, only modalism, three different modes of the same God. Or one says physical baptism is necessary for salvation, and another says it is not. What accounts for these differences if both are truly devout and honestly seeking God’s will and are supposedly moved by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture?
In all honesty, you must admit that those same differences exist within the doors of your Catholic church. One person may believe in Catholic teaching regarding the Eucharist while another always truly believes that its only symbolism. Who is correct and why?
This is no obstacle to our belief of infallible interpretation. We know that the Magisterium can interpret Scripture infallibly. Yet any individual can (and often does) disagree with this or that truth declared by the Magisterium. The same can be said of Scripture, that some people will deny facts even asserted in Scripture. This does not taint the infallibility of Scripture, only the individual’s soul.
And to answer why, I love to quote my beloved Saint Francis de Sales: “Whoever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficult a way, says that he wishes us to perish. Whoever says that he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide, without giving us a skilful pilot able to use properly his compass and Chart, says that the Saviour is wanting in foresight. Whoever says that this good Father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says that he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance.” In other words, the Scriptures need some infallible interpreter on earth, since without one they are useless to us for the very reason we’ve just discussed, namely that two devout people may genuinely and sincerely come up with two contradictory interpretations of the same Scripture passage. Thus we need the one definitive interpreter so that we can access Scripture’s infallibility and finally have confidence in a given interpretation that it is approved by God as His true intent in the Holy Writings. This should suffice to convince us that such a definitive interpreter must exist. The question then shouldn’t be whether it exists, but where such interpretative authority is.
How do you truly know without believing you know and by placing faith in the interpretations you believe in? Even Catholics must take leaps of faith to some extent along the way. Placing faith in a Creator. In the NT story. In ECFs and Catholic Church interpretations. But that’s a lot of faith steps in addition to having faith that Christ never along the way has needed to reform His Church before you get to the point of believing you know. I know you believe you know the Magisterium interprets infallibly. You have faith. Maybe not everyone can be right on every single detail obviously. Maybe no one has everything right. I don’t know with 100% absolute certainty.
That’s why religions are called faiths. May God bless all who walk by their faith as they seek to be within His sight. I have faith He can understand hearts and minds. And if and when He comes again which by faith I and many of us believe He will, we shall know. In the meantime peace to all His people on earth and I pray beyond. God bless you in your walk.I think your example is incorrect.
That seems to be a common attitude among many Protestants I know. To them I have to ask: what good are any of Christ’s "amen"s when we can’t trust what we understand them to mean?How do you truly know without believing you know and by placing faith in the interpretations you believe in? Even Catholics must take leaps of faith to some extent along the way. Placing faith in a Creator. In the NT story. In ECFs and Catholic Church interpretations. But that’s a lot of faith steps in addition to having faith that Christ never along the way has needed to reform His Church before you get to the point of believing you know. I know you believe you know the Magisterium interprets infallibly. You have faith. Maybe not everyone can be right on every single detail obviously. Maybe no one has everything right. I don’t know with 100% absolute certainty.
I’m not sure it’s exactly a matter of trusting their understanding when they are people of faith. Taking some leaps of trust is part of faith. But all human people of faith on earth have finite minds. Even those of Christian faith. And each understands an infinite God as they understand Him to be, to the best that they can within their finite minds.
Sandalwood, thank you for this. For clearing some things up and I must say your post has to be one of the nicest, most beautiful posts I have seen from a Catholic Christian towards other Christians here on CAF in all my time here. As far as the cross above the altar, I recently attended Catholic Mass at a church that had no cross above the altar. There was a cross on a stand off to the side. But I’m not sure what that might mean. In any case thank you so very much for your words. God bless you and peace be with you always. I do just have to say “Amen” to your post. And I trust I mean my “Amen”.
