Serious Problem on my journey to Catholicism

[LittleDeb]

continued…

The example of the assumption of Mary is a good one to begin with, then I will give you a hypothetical that could be possible.

Before 1950 It was taught consistently by The Church (Magisterium) that Mary was assumed into Heaven. As you saw from the link, the ECFs taught it and it was never taught that she was NOT assumed into Heaven. By being consistently taught without ever teaching differently it was considered ‘Doctrine.’ Consistency is what helps establish doctrine. Since the teaching authority is ‘free from error’ (remember NOT ‘away from error’…free) any doctrine it teaches consistently is infallible (the translation of the word means basically that, ‘free from error’) since the teaching authority Herself is free from error. This might be causing more confusion but I will press on.

In 1950 it was taught “from the chair” of Peter that Mary was in fact assumed into heaven. This was a Dogma. It was not new information, it was not anyone saying that it had not been taught before. It was The Magisterium saying, “We were 99.999999…% sure before. Now we are 100% sure.” Sorry, those are VERY human terms but it is the best I can do right now. So that is one example. Now to the hypothetical that could happen.

Scripture and Tradition have referenced contraception. Since it is not spelled out in a way that everyone agrees on it has been something for the teaching authority to use Her wisdom in helping us learn. It has been consistently taught that contraception is inherently disordered. (Scripture Catholic has a link to that too!) Through the centuries it has been consistently taught by the Magisterium and is therefore Doctrine. Before 1930 all Christian churches taught that contraception was wrong. During the time when all other churches were caving to secular society, The Catholic Church held that it was still wrong.

The Church convened studies, interviewed “experts” and were told by some that it was not wrong. Since The Church is free from error in faith and morals she held to her consistent teaching. It remains a Doctrine. Some time in the future a dogmatic statement could be made that garantees it, but it has not yet. With the way things are going in society right now it is very possible that it will be seen as 100% sure. But since I am not the Magisterium I can only have an opinion.

So in short: all Doctrine taught by The Church is infallible since the Teaching Authority is infallible. The dogmatic statement about papal infallibility confirms what was consistent teaching. That the teaching authority is free from error and it rests on the shoulders of ‘the successor of Peter’ to uphold it. As I said before, you will need a deep understanding of infallibility to understand. Infallibility is not the man, it’s the office.

Since the beginning of The Church we have known, “Thou art Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

As someone else here said it really does boil down to authority. I choose human teachers guided by The Holy Spirit over my personal interpretation of Scripture. (Edit: 2000 years of human teachers!)

Wow that was long. I hope it helped. If not let me know what was confusing and I will try to give a much shorter answer.

 

[fwon2638]

Dear Michal,

Well, I hve been reading more and more Protestant works on the origins of the bible. They claim that the Catholic Church didn’t decide the canon of the Scriptures, instead they merely recognized the authority of the books of the bible and put them together in a canon. So, we don’t have to accept the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to accept Scriptures (which is a thought that I had which started my journey), instead, we just have to recognize the authority of the Scriptures. What are y’alls thoughts on that?

Since the Scripture does not say how many books should be in the New Testament how do you know that the NT has 27 books? Without the authority of the Church, would you accept letters that is clearly NOT written by the Apostles (e.g. James, Hebrews) to be in the NT Canon?

Also, I know that there are Scripture that the Catholics point towards (1 Tim. 3:15, etc.), but, from these verses, how do we get the specific Catholic teaching of infallibility?..

Re: Infallibility of the Church: if the Church can err in matters relating to faith and moral, how can she be the pillar and foundation of truth?

Re: Papal infallibility- if you recall at the end of Gospel John, Jesus commissions Peter (and his successors) to be the chief shepherd of His flock, if Peter can err in matters relating to faith and moral, then he cannot be the shepherd BUT the poisoner of Jesus’ flock.

Also, how does the Catholic Church define Tradition? I mean, I know it is the oral teachings of the apostles that were passed down orally. I understand material sufficiency, but if that is true what did the Fathers pass down? The apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures?

The Bible is an example of Tradition. None of the NT letters and Gospel requires the development of NT.

Without an infallbile institution which determine the “index” of the Bible, how can you infallbilly know that the Book you are writing are indeed Word’s of Good. and How can you practice sola scriptura?

---

As a law student, I always like to compare the Bible and the Constitution, both are infallible documents:

Will you say that the Constitution is of itself sufficient in governing the legal polity of a country? Clearly everyone can read and understand the Constitution (materially sufficiency). But then, why do we need the Supreme Court to infallibly decide the exactly meaning of the provisions of the Constitution, as people can read the Constitution differently (i.e. formally insufficient).

Imagine if there is no Supreme Court and individual has to determine what is constitutional and what is not, the whole society will collapse…

Since a country cannot be run by the concept of “Consitution alone”, do you think that Christ’s Church can be run by “Bible alone”?

As well, Jesus teaches us the truth while He was living on this planet? What is the best way to ensure the truth will be passed on from generation to generation?

a) Bible alone- let individual subjectively to decide what is bibical and what is not?
b) Deposit His teaching to His Church and give her the authority over the people?

And lastly

But why should I accept the Fathers?

If I have to choose between fallible Fathers and fallble Refomers, I choose the former.

Regards,

Francis

 

[John_Henry]

BigTurkey:

Well, I hve been reading more and more Protestant works on the origins of the bible. They claim that the Catholic Church didn’t decide the canon of the Scriptures, instead they merely recognized the authority of the books of the bible and put them together in a canon. So, we don’t have to accept the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to accept Scriptures (which is a thought that I had which started my journey), instead, we just have to recognize the authority of the Scriptures. What are y’alls thoughts on that?

Lots of questions there, bud. Ain’t no thang, but I think I will only address one. It seems to me that the distinction they are trying to draw is a distinction without a difference. What’s the difference between the Church not “deciding”, but merely “recognizing” the auhtority of the books. It seems like they think we are saying the books are authoritative because we chose them. But that ain’t the story. The story is that the books are authoritative because they were composed by the apostles or their co-workers under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But your books seem to make it sound like it’s a cinch to figure out which of the myriad of available early church writings were indeed authoritative*. If it was so easy, how come we don’t see someone list the modern NT canon until AD 367 (St. Athanasius)? So while the books are authoritative in of themselves, it required the Church, relying on her tradition, to recognize which were authoritative. So the canon is completely reliant on the Church and her tradition. In other words, it ain’t the authority of the books that’s in question, but the authority of the canon.

And I note that your sources, from what you say, seem to concede the point that the early church was the Catholic Church.

• Paul’s writings were recognized very early on. But Paul’s writings do not the bible make.

 

[scylla]

Don’t worry about having problems on your journey to Catholicism, you might not worry but I think this is an important thing to state anyways.

There is a reason why it takes people time to come to the Catholic faith, the last Journey Home last Monday had a Southern Baptist who had come home to the Church, it took him about 15 years to come to the Church.

Some of us it takes a few days, some months, some years, depending on many factors. Family, prejudice, pride, mis-understanding etc…not to mention the biggest obstacle to becoming Catholic is some of the Catholics you meet.

The answers are there and if no-one has explained things enough to you then just wait a few day, pray about it and keep looking. I guarantee you there is an answer for every single question you have about the faith, it just is that sometimes we don’t articulate them well, or it just takes a little looking into.

In Christ
Scylla

Feel free to repost if we haven’t answered your questions clearly enough and we will respond gladly.

 

[BigTurkey]

fwon2638:

Will you say that the Constitution is of itself sufficient in governing the legal polity of a country? Clearly everyone can read and understand the Constitution (materially sufficiency). But then, why do we need the Supreme Court to infallibly decide the exactly meaning of the provisions of the Constitution, as people can read the Constitution differently (i.e. formally insufficient).

Is the Supreme Court infallible? If so, then they could never over turn the previous rulings of the Court, but they do. The are authoritative, but not infallible. (right?) So, why can’t we have a church like that? Why does there need to be infallibility?

Imagine if there is no Supreme Court and individual has to determine what is constitutional and what is not, the whole society will collapse…

That is a line of thought that nudges me towards Catholicism…however, my question above needs to be answered.

As well, Jesus teaches us the truth while He was living on this planet? What is the best way to ensure the truth will be passed on from generation to generation?

a) Bible alone- let individual subjectively to decide what is bibical and what is not?
b) Deposit His teaching to His Church and give her the authority over the people?

C.S. Lewis has a passage in his section on Scriptures in Reflection on the Psalms in which he says there is a danger in the Fundamentalists and the Catholics when they say “such-and-such is true because it would be the best way for God to do things.” What do you think about that? Do you think that is similar to your above argument?

Also, has anyone ever read Williston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church? What did you think? Was it heavily anti-Catholic? I reading it now, and I was wanting to know y’alls thoughts as to its reliability as far as Church History goes.

-BT

 

[Reformed_Rob]

BigTurkey:

Hey guys,

Well, I hve been reading more and more Protestant works on the origins of the bible. They claim that the Catholic Church didn’t decide the canon of the Scriptures, instead they merely recognized the authority of the books of the bible and put them together in a canon. So, we don’t have to accept the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to accept Scriptures (which is a thought that I had which started my journey), instead, we just have to recognize the authority of the Scriptures. What are y’alls thoughts on that?

-Micah

John Henry, fwon2638 and others addressed this, perhaps I could supplement it a tad.

Not to do any injustice to God’s providence in leading people to “recognize” or “determine” the Canon, but there is another angle from which the problem can be viewed.

If the Church were not “infallible,” as it were, then how can anyone be certain that the decision, or the “recognition” of the Canon is reliable??

Some try to avoid this by saying that the OT Church wasn’t “infallible” but they kept and correctly recognized the OT, therefore the NT Church doesn’t have to be either. Well, I don’t know if that’s completely true that the OT Israelites, Pharisees and all truly did such a great job, I don’t know. But certainly nowadays, with the OT and the NT, there is a lot at stake. I would like to know that the books I look to as the “Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed, Word of God” are actually that!

Obviously, the Church doesn’t “make” them inspired, or anything like that. I suppose they are that independent of man’s judgement, but man’s judgement is still necessary to know which letters/writings are inspired.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Big Turkey:

The OP set out as a topic your problems around Scripture, Tradition, Authority, and how the Church Fathers fitted into this scenario.

An immense amount of information has been offered to you on the topic of this thread. You have responded by changing the subject.

Some of us have found that changing the subject is a tactic to avoid genuine discussion of Catholic teaching, but to arbitrarily call Catholic teaching into question without addressing the answers.

As I said before – and this is now the third time I am saying it – in Catholicism questions have answers. So I take it that your lack of direct response to the information retrieved for you means that you have conceded the points we have made.

 

[BigTurkey]

Ani Ibi:

Big Turkey:

The OP set out as a topic your problems around Scripture, Tradition, Authority, and how the Church Fathers fitted into this scenario.

An immense amount of information has been offered to you on the topic of this thread. You have responded by changing the subject.

Some of us have found that changing the subject is a tactic to avoid genuine discussion of Catholic teaching, but to arbitrarily call Catholic teaching into question without addressing the answers.

As I said before – and this is now the third time I am saying it – in Catholicism questions have answers. So I take it that your lack of direct response to the information retrieved for you means that you have conceded the points we have made.

I’m sorry to have other questions to ask. Would you rather me start another post? My post really seems to be avoiding your answers, doesn’t it? Are you always this rude and arrogant towards people who are seriously and prayerfully studying the Catholic faith? Do you know that I spend at least 3 hours a day reading books related to this discussion? Did you know that I talk about 3 hours every week to a former Church of Christ preacher (my denomination) who is now a Catholic on the phone? Did you know that we exchange multiple emails a day talking about specific points of Catholicism? Did you know that I am studying the Catholic Catechism to learn what Catholics really teach? Did you know that I am challenging my friends and family to study Catholicism with me? Did you know that I read all the posts on this thread multiple times, and I came away with a lot of information? Have you even read my replies to your posts, in which several times I said “Good point”? Have you read my replies to other posts to see that I often compliment them on their posts?

All of my questions in my last post on here were related in come way to my OP, and to prove it to you I will quote my own post and then tell you how it ties in:

Is the Supreme Court infallible? If so, then they could never over turn the previous rulings of the Court, but they do. The are authoritative, but not infallible. (right?) So, why can’t we have a church like that? Why does there need to be infallibility?

The post I was responding to stated that the Supreme Court was infallible, so I was asking him if they were infallible in the same sense as the Magisterium. Also, many Catholics like to talk about the divisions in Protestantism as being indictative of the problems with sola Scripturea, but that argument doesn’t seem to lead to the infallible Magisterium. To me, it just means that there needs to be a centralized, teaching body. But, they don’t have to be authoritative. I am asking peoples thoughts on this subject.

That is a line of thought that nudges me towards Catholicism…however, my question above needs to be answered.

Hmmm…is this a concession that for the most part I see this guys points? It sure does seem so. I only have one questions, and that is the earlier one. However, I am asking this question mainly because I have friends (Episcopalians) who are asking me this question, and I was wanting to get peoples thoughts on it.

C.S. Lewis has a passage in his section on Scriptures in Reflection on the Psalms in which he says there is a danger in the Fundamentalists and the Catholics when they say “such-and-such is true because it would be the best way for God to do things.” What do you think about that? Do you think that is similar to your above argument?

This question is directly related to the question in my OP! One of the replies was arguing (I think, although i could be mistaken, which is the reason I asked him if he thought C.S. Lewis’s point applied to him.) that it would be better for God to give us an infallible church then for sola Scriptura to be true. So, I am asking him if he thought it was a good idea to use “It’s best for God to do such-and-such…” in an argument.

Also, has anyone ever read Williston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church? What did you think? Was it heavily anti-Catholic? I reading it now, and I was wanting to know y’alls thoughts as to its reliability as far as Church History goes.

Nothing could be closer related to my OP. Walker’s history talks a lot about the theology of the early church and the fathers. He has said some things in favor of Catholic views, and some things that are not. So, I was trying to get feedback from people about Walker’s potential bias, so that I can be more careful and alert when I read.

(cont.)

 

[BigTurkey]

So, would you like me to run all my future posts by you in the future to make sure they tie in with the OP? You really need to learn to be nicer. I am sincerely searching (which you have judged based upon absolutely no evidence that I am not sincerely searching). As I stated earlier, I spend all the free time reading things related to this question. I have read Dave Currie’s Born Fundamentalists, Born Again Catholic, two Karl Keating books, am working my way through the Catechism, a book written by the preacher friend I mentioned earlier, Sugenis’s Not by Scripure Alone…, a Protestant defense of sola Scriptura, I read most of the threads on the apologetics forums, I have read most of the tracts on the CA website, I read a lot on Dave Armstrong’s website, and on and on and on. All this in less than two months. So, don’t challenge my sincerity. I have changed my views extensively. I am almost to the point of rejecting sola Scriptura, I have already rejected (w/ a little doubt though) the penal substitution model of salvations, I am working on accepting the Magisterium and Tradition, I am nearly confident that the deuterocanonical books should be a part of the canon, I only struggle with the Marian doctrines of Mediatrix and the Assumption, and I could go on and on about how I have already accepted or am on the verge of accepting many Catholic doctrines. I am also encouraging my wife, father, friends, fellow students, professors ( I am a twenty year old philosophy major at Auburn University), and others to study Catholicism with me. I talk regularly with my minister and my father-and-law (an elder in the CofC) about Catholicism.

Do you need anymore proof that I am sincere? Do you need any more proof that I am not ignoring the answers, but instead am reading them multiple times and thinking about them? Would you rather my blindly accept the arguments without thinking about them and reading the opposing sides views? Would you rather me rush into Catholicism before I am confident that I can no longer stay in Protestantism?

Or does all of this have more to do with the fact that I didn’t find your arguments 100% convincing and convert on the spot? What do you want me to do? Your posts were helpful and many parts convincing. What more do you want me to say? I’m sorry I challenged your argument, but I was hoping you were mature enough not to take it personally and to actually respond and help me out. I am searching for the truth, and I am not afraid at all to change my beliefs when presented with sufficient evidence and time to ponder the evidence is given.

I’m sorry that this email is long and harsh, but I don’t think it is fair or Christian-like to criticize my sincerity when you have no reason to do so. I apologize for any part of your post I have misrepresented. If this email turns out to be uncalled for, then tell me and I will post an apology.

Micah

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread is now being closed.

I encourage the OP to continue his search with an open heart and to perhaps pick one topic to discuss per thread in future in order to avoid confusion and to allow better answers.

Please PM me with any pertinent questions if need be.