A.J.,
A necessary condition for the act of faith is that a believer should know what God has revealed; the object of faith must be presented to him as credible on the divine authority. But, it is evident that, so far as the act of divine faith as such is concerned, it matters little by what means it is presented.
So, let me ask AGAIN…
Do you think that truth matters, especially doctrines about our soul?
Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine?
Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what they teach?
IF you answer “yes” to these questions (and I realize, as a Catholic, you may not), then The Catholic Church is accountable for the doctrines it teaches - no less than any other teacher. And the question becomes WHAT is the most sound norma normans for that then required norming?
You have chosen to go along with the demand of The Catholic Church alone that The Catholic Church alone be exempt from accountability, that norming for the teachings of it itself exclusively be circumvented, and instead, it doctrines of itself alone are simply to be accepted as true with docility, as Jesus speaking. As I noted, I have no issue with such as a pure act of faith - and I will afford you EXACTLY the same respect for such as you yourself afford to say our Mormon friends who have the exact same act of faith in the exact same docilic acceptance of whatever their denomination says. Fair enough? I’m sure you think it is. But friend, the issue before us is not whether you choose to perform a pure act of faith and just give one teacher a “pass” on accountability exclusively, the issue here is accountability for teachers of doctrine. Those that embrace the norm of Scripture obviously are accepting norming - because they accept accountability because they think that truth matters. This is where we fundamentally disagree: it all comes down to accountability. I embrace it, you don’t (at least in the singular, exclusive, sole case of The Catholic Church alone). In such, you are being a faithful Catholic and doing what The Catholic Church requires in the exclusive case of itself alone.
They have their motives of credibility, they have the assistance of God’s grace; they have, in short, all that is necessary for the act of divine faith.
I understand your point, it’s just moot to the discussion here. We’re not talking about whether a member of Jonestown and a follower of Jim Jones was sincere or not, whether such performed an act of faith in just accepting whatever a teacher taught “with docility” “as God speaking.” I suspect they did. Their kool-aid experience gives some credence to their sincerity in such. Such acts of faith is a subject for another day and thread. The Catholic Church holds ALL teachers of doctrine FULLY ACCOUNTABLE - right here, right now - for what is taught (not for the sincerity of the followers or the act of faith in docilicly accepting such as true). But, of course, it reverses this epistemology completely and entirely in the sole and exclusive case of just one: Itself. We’re disagreeing about the soundness of such in the determination of the correctness of a teacher.
God instituted the Church through his only begotten Son, and has bestowed on it the manifest marks of that institution, that it may be recognized by all men as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word. This, then, is the way of approach to God’s truth which Christ himself ordained: a visible Church with a living teaching authority, infallible because the Holy Spirit is with her, preserving her free from error.
All those that insist that self exclusively be exempted from accountability for it doctrines (the LDS and all the cults, for example) have the same “problem.” How to justify that every OTHER teacher is fully accountable right here, right now (because they all seek to condemn, rebuke and anathmatize all OTHER teachers as heretical and/or apostate), but to circumvent all norming in the singular, sole case of itself. My study of them reveals they all seem to use the exact same playbook - Jesus founded IT, and (though some “logic” that is always baseless) ergo such must be unaccountable/infallible. It’s a profoundly weak apologetic: First of all, the premise (that God founded IT - particularly, exclusively) is always entirely unfounded, just the claim of self for self. Secondly, the premise is entirely illogical and unbiblical. There is no connection between God founding to teaching or leading - and the resulting object of such being infallible and unaccountable. A review of Genesis chapter 3 should make that point undeniable (for starters - the whole rest of the Bible repeatedly makes the same point, as does all of human experience). Yet, again, the foundational “problem:” How to make all OTHER teachers fully accountable yet self totally exempt?
Do you think truth matters, especially doctrine about our souls?
Does The Catholic Church teach doctrine?
Are teachers of doctrine accountable for what they teach?
Do you agree with Jesus when He repeatedly and boldly warned us about false teachers, antichrists and those that lead many astray (never exempting The Catholic Church from that), suggesting that teachers can be wrong and thus are accountable? Do you agree with Jesus as He praised the Ephesian Christians for doing what The Catholic Church does not permit, for regarding teachers as accountable, for testing/norming them, for regarding them as false?
.
