Ultimate Authority

[TommyWommy]

There’s probably a thread on this, but I didn’t find it. So, here goes:

Since each individual has to make a decision regarding which religion is right, doesn’t that mean that the individual is the ultimate final authority?

In terms of Scripture alone vs. Scripture plus Tradition, each individual has to decide which side of the fence to be on.

In terms of Christianity vs. other religions or any religion at all, the individual has to decide which is right.

Even to be “undecided” requires a choice and a “final answer.” If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Final authority.

Thus, when a Catholic objects to the Protestant being in the “every-man-his-own-pope” camp, the Protestant can claim a double standard and say, "You Catholics essentially do the same thing. You as a Catholic individual decide and “declare” the Catholic Church and its interpretations to be right. You “decide” to place yourself under her authority. So, ultimately, you also are making the “final call.” Ultimate authority.

How should I, as a Catholic, respond to this?

 

[Scoobyshme]

There’s probably a thread on this, but I didn’t find it. So, here goes:

Since each individual has to make a decision regarding which religion is right, doesn’t that mean that the individual is the ultimate final authority?

In terms of Scripture alone vs. Scripture plus Tradition, each individual has to decide which side of the fence to be on.

In terms of Christianity vs. other religions or any religion at all, the individual has to decide which is right.

Even to be “undecided” requires a choice and a “final answer.” If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Final authority.

Thus, when a Catholic objects to the Protestant being in the “every-man-his-own-pope” camp, the Protestant can claim a double standard and say, "You Catholics essentially do the same thing. You as a Catholic individual decide and “declare” the Catholic Church and its interpretations to be right. You “decide” to place yourself under her authority. So, ultimately, you also are making the “final call.” Ultimate authority.

How should I, as a Catholic, respond to this?

The Church teaches that we are to follow our conscience. However, it also says we have a ‘serious obligation’ to form our consciences properly, and this means within the teachings of the Church. Why would this be? Because the teachings of the Catholic Church ARE the teachings handed down from Jesus Christ.

Only the Catholic Church has the full Word of God. The Word of God is NOT just the Bible, but the Bible, Holy Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. The Magisterium is the Pope, the successor of Peter, and the bishops in union with him. We teach that God is Trinitarian. Three Divine Persons in one God, inseparable. Wherever you find One Divine Person, you necessarily find the other two. The Word of God also has a Trinitarian nature. Wherever you find one part of the Word of God, you find the other two. Wherever you find Holy Tradition, you find Holy Scripture and Magisterial teaching. Wherever you find Magisterial teaching, you find Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Wherever you find Holy Scripture, you find Magisterial teaching and Holy Tradition. The Bible only contains SOME of what Jesus did and taught. (See John 21:25) Yet, Jesus commanded the Church, through the Apostles and their successors, to teach ALL that He had taught them. (See Matt. 28:20). So, there’s a problem if someone believes in the Bible only (Sola Scriptura, a main tenet of Protestantism). Not all that Jesus taught is in there, but we are to teach all that He taught. The difference is in Holy Tradition, a.k.a., Oral Tradition, which has the same weight as Written Tradition, a.k.a., Holy Scripture. (See 2 Thes. 2:15) And we known from experience, that any transmitted word must have an authentic interpreter, otherwise you will end up with as many interpretations as you have interpreters. Just look at Protestantism for an example of this. You have one Bible, but everyone is allowed to interpret it as he/she wants, and the result is literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing, contradictory denominations, all founded on someone’s personal interpretation, which Scripture says is a no-no. (See 2 Peter 1:20) For example, the Baptists do not believe in infant Baptism, but the Lutherans and Methodists do. All three claim to read the same Bible and claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations. Yet, the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of Confusion or Contradiction. Both sides cannot be right. Either infant Baptism is acceptable (it is) or it is not.

I don’t care how many degrees a person may have in theology, whether they know Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc. If they don’t interpret the Bible with the SAME Spirit in which it was written and taught for 2000 years, then they are nothing more than an amateur and an outsider, and they will make mistakes!

The Catholic Church has received Divine Revelation from Jesus, and does NOT claim the right to correct any of it. As such, the Church has NEVER changed any of the doctrines it has received throughout its 2000 year history. It only has the authority and responsibility to hand on what it has received, in its fullness.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Since each individual has to make a decision regarding which religion is right, doesn’t that mean that the individual is the ultimate final authority?

God actually provided that “authority” to all humans—it’s called free will to make decisions. There’s no way around this. It’s a gift from God and nothing to deny, since He created us so generously in His image. By itself, the existence of free will neither supports nor subverts the Catholic or others’ position.

As Cardinal Newman said: “For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.”

Catholics believe in an affinity between faith and reason. The historical testimony we recognize has Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy, claiming divinity, rising from the dead, His followers were martyred for that believe, there are miracles to this day in His name, there is the experience of love in the faith, etc… So since humans have sentience and free will, there remains the obligation to submit to God’s authority since that not only is the path to salvation, but because He is the all Holy One deserving of that submission.

Therefore it is* in making the decision* for or against Catholicism where the Protestant or skeptic errs. Your critics assume that everyone makes decisions honestly, unhindered, or well-informed (as Scooby also suggested). We believe that to suggest the Catholic Magisterium has no divine authorization to teach divine truth is an erroneous conclusion made by those with the free will to draw that conclusion. And just because one draws an erroneous conclusion, it does not put them on par with a person who has drawn a correct conclusion.

The Protestant response to “you are all your own pope” does not come into play because the error comes at a level deeper than the decision of origin: “where can I find truth”. The Protestant does not wish submit to the teaching of another because that other is teaching it. He has placed himself above any other soul or Church when turning only to “himself” for answers. Now, unwittingly, such a Protestant submits to other authorities all the time, such as when he searches the Scripture discerned by the Church.

The “you are your own Pope” argument would not stand if God really did intend to guide us individually on doctrine and not corporately as He does through the Church. The question is, which did God set up? The Protestant’s idea of “I can be my own Pope” is really alien to the early Church and to the Scripture. And it does take the individual’s God-given sentience and free will to recognize that in the first place.

Hope some of these thoughts made sense.

 

[TommyWommy]

God actually provided that “authority” to all humans—it’s called free will to make decisions. There’s no way around this. It’s a gift from God and nothing to deny, since He created us so generously in His image. By itself, the existence of free will neither supports nor subverts the Catholic or others’ position.

As Cardinal Newman said: “For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.”

Catholics believe in an affinity between faith and reason. The historical testimony we recognize has Jesus fulfilling OT prophecy, claiming divinity, rising from the dead, His followers were martyred for that believe, there are miracles to this day in His name, there is the experience of love in the faith, etc… So since humans have sentience and free will, there remains the obligation to submit to God’s authority since that not only is the path to salvation, but because He is the all Holy One deserving of that submission.

Therefore it is* in making the decision* for or against Catholicism where the Protestant or skeptic errs. Your critics assume that everyone makes decisions honestly, unhindered, or well-informed (as Scooby also suggested). We believe that to suggest the Catholic Magisterium has no divine authorization to teach divine truth is an erroneous conclusion made by those with the free will to draw that conclusion. And just because one draws an erroneous conclusion, it does not put them on par with a person who has drawn a correct conclusion.

The Protestant response to “you are all your own pope” does not come into play because the error comes at a level deeper than the decision of origin: “where can I find truth”. The Protestant does not wish submit to the teaching of another because that other is teaching it. He has placed himself above any other soul or Church when turning only to “himself” for answers. Now, unwittingly, such a Protestant submits to other authorities all the time, such as when he searches the Scripture discerned by the Church.

The “you are your own Pope” argument would not stand if God really did intend to guide us individually on doctrine and not corporately as He does through the Church. The question is, which did God set up? The Protestant’s idea of “I can be my own Pope” is really alien to the early Church and to the Scripture. And it does take the individual’s God-given sentience and free will to recognize that in the first place.

Hope some of these thoughts made sense.

Yes, thank you, I think it makes some sense. Our free will is a type of God-given authority. Faith and reason have to work together. I guess I was thinking that one’s use of reason equates to “turning to oneself” whether Catholic or Protestant. Whether I am honest, dishonest, correct or incorrect, I am still turning to my own reason and deciding what “I” think is the best placement of my faith. That is where I’m getting “stuck.” I’m also wondering if Relativism somehow factors into this issue.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Yes, thank you, I think it makes some sense. Our free will is a type of God-given authority. Faith and reason have to work together. I guess I was thinking that one’s use of reason equates to “turning to oneself” whether Catholic or Protestant. Whether I am honest, dishonest, correct or incorrect, I am still turning to my own reason and deciding what “I” think is the best placement of my faith. That is where I’m getting “stuck.” I’m also wondering if Relativism somehow factors into this issue.

Regarding relativism, that’s really a false conclusion from the evidence at hand. I think there is often a certain obstinance from people who are pure relativists. And if they are truly sincere in their faulty conclusions, the Church teaches invincible ignorance. Although I don’t wouldn’t want to depend on that!

 

[TommyWommy]

The Church teaches that we are to follow our conscience. However, it also says we have a ‘serious obligation’ to form our consciences properly, and this means within the teachings of the Church. Why would this be? Because the teachings of the Catholic Church ARE the teachings handed down from Jesus Christ.

Only the Catholic Church has the full Word of God. The Word of God is NOT just the Bible, but the Bible, Holy Tradition, and Magisterial teaching. The Magisterium is the Pope, the successor of Peter, and the bishops in union with him. We teach that God is Trinitarian. Three Divine Persons in one God, inseparable. Wherever you find One Divine Person, you necessarily find the other two. The Word of God also has a Trinitarian nature. Wherever you find one part of the Word of God, you find the other two. Wherever you find Holy Tradition, you find Holy Scripture and Magisterial teaching. Wherever you find Magisterial teaching, you find Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Wherever you find Holy Scripture, you find Magisterial teaching and Holy Tradition. The Bible only contains SOME of what Jesus did and taught. (See John 21:25) Yet, Jesus commanded the Church, through the Apostles and their successors, to teach ALL that He had taught them. (See Matt. 28:20). So, there’s a problem if someone believes in the Bible only (Sola Scriptura, a main tenet of Protestantism). Not all that Jesus taught is in there, but we are to teach all that He taught. The difference is in Holy Tradition, a.k.a., Oral Tradition, which has the same weight as Written Tradition, a.k.a., Holy Scripture. (See 2 Thes. 2:15) And we known from experience, that any transmitted word must have an authentic interpreter, otherwise you will end up with as many interpretations as you have interpreters. Just look at Protestantism for an example of this. You have one Bible, but everyone is allowed to interpret it as he/she wants, and the result is literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing, contradictory denominations, all founded on someone’s personal interpretation, which Scripture says is a no-no. (See 2 Peter 1:20) For example, the Baptists do not believe in infant Baptism, but the Lutherans and Methodists do. All three claim to read the same Bible and claim to be led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations. Yet, the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit of Confusion or Contradiction. Both sides cannot be right. Either infant Baptism is acceptable (it is) or it is not.

I don’t care how many degrees a person may have in theology, whether they know Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc. If they don’t interpret the Bible with the SAME Spirit in which it was written and taught for 2000 years, then they are nothing more than an amateur and an outsider, and they will make mistakes!

The Catholic Church has received Divine Revelation from Jesus, and does NOT claim the right to correct any of it. As such, the Church has NEVER changed any of the doctrines it has received throughout its 2000 year history. It only has the authority and responsibility to hand on what it has received, in its fullness.

Thank you. I think the use of conscience is along the same lines as the free will that Marco Polo referred to. And that formation of conscience is the use of reason and faith together. Does that sound correct? Still trying to wrap my mind around a few things. If I use reason to decide where to place my faith, am I not placing my own reason “on top” of all else? I’m missing something, I suspect.

 

[steve_b]

Since each individual has to make a decision regarding which religion is right, doesn’t that mean that the individual is the ultimate final authority?

No. That would suggest no one is higher than the individual.
tw:

In terms of Scripture alone vs. Scripture plus Tradition, each individual has to decide which side of the fence to be on.

Scripture is a tradition that happens to be written down.

Tradition, whether written (scripture) or oral ( non-written, but teaching from an apostle) , are both authoritative and we are to hold fast to both, not one to the exclusion of the other, but BOTH authorities. [2 Thes 2:15]
tw:

In terms of Christianity vs. other religions or any religion at all, the individual has to decide which is right.

FAITH is a gift. But it doesn’t stand alone. That’s why Peter said

5 For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, forif you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. [2 Pet 1:5-12]

Therefore, we need to make every effort to add to our faith the following

• virtue, knowledge, self control, steadfastness, godliness, love

Then comes a condition. If these qualities abound, they keep one from being ineffective in the knowledge of Jesus. So it’s zealousness in this behavior in order to confirm one’s call and election.

• And Peter intends to remind/warn his listeners over and over again because people get distracted and he doesn’t want to see them fall.

tw:

Even to be “undecided” requires a choice and a “final answer.” If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Final authority.

Depends on one’s level of knowledge or lack of.
tw:

Thus, when a Catholic objects to the Protestant being in the “every-man-his-own-pope” camp, the Protestant can claim a double standard and say, "You Catholics essentially do the same thing. You as a Catholic individual decide and “declare” the Catholic Church and its interpretations to be right. You “decide” to place yourself under her authority. So, ultimately, you also are making the “final call.” Ultimate authority.

How should I, as a Catholic, respond to this?

Ask them

Q. “what is the pillar and foundation of truth according to scripture”?

A. It’s the Church. [1 Tim 3:15]

Is a person’s private interpretation of scripture insured correct? Not if they read scripture in opposition to the Church that gave them the scriptures…

 

[neophyte]

There’s probably a thread on this, but I didn’t find it. So, here goes:

Since each individual has to make a decision regarding which religion is right, doesn’t that mean that the individual is the ultimate final authority?..?

No, because the determination is about a matter of external, objective fact, and is properly made according to external, objective standards.

An illustration: I want to make a decision about whether or not the slope of a curve is positive or negative as it approaches infinity. I make use of the objective rules of mathematics in order to arrive at the correct result. That doesn’t make me the final authority on the question, all it makes me is an observer of objective fact. In reality, I’ve submitted myself to a higher authority than myself.

In the same way, the question of which religion is correct is a question about objective reality, and the answer can be arrived at by using objective methods.

 

[fhansen]

There’s probably a thread on this, but I didn’t find it. So, here goes:

Since each individual has to make a decision regarding which religion is right, doesn’t that mean that the individual is the ultimate final authority?

In terms of Scripture alone vs. Scripture plus Tradition, each individual has to decide which side of the fence to be on.

In terms of Christianity vs. other religions or any religion at all, the individual has to decide which is right.

Even to be “undecided” requires a choice and a “final answer.” If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Final authority.

Thus, when a Catholic objects to the Protestant being in the “every-man-his-own-pope” camp, the Protestant can claim a double standard and say, "You Catholics essentially do the same thing. You as a Catholic individual decide and “declare” the Catholic Church and its interpretations to be right. You “decide” to place yourself under her authority. So, ultimately, you also are making the “final call.” Ultimate authority.

How should I, as a Catholic, respond to this?

This is true. But, I believe, if our hearts are in the right place, hungering and thirsting for truth and righteousness, God by His grace will lead us accordingly. Our only alternative would be to believe that the truth regarding God and the afterlife, etc. is not ascertainable at all.

In any case we don’t decide anything so much as navigate towards it, the sheep hearing the Shepard’s voice and following. But there are obstacles to our hearing the message in its clearest form. There’re our own cultural backgrounds, a myriad of other voices competing for our attention, church scandals, and our own weakness/ignorance. Anyway, we don’t all receive the same gifts but we all get a fair shake, IMO. Luke 12:48 tells us that from he who’s given much, much will be demanded.

In my own case I went from having a faint hope that there might be something greater than myself-a purpose to it all-to a belief in God via Christianity, to my own surprise, and much later to re-entering the Catholic Church as I found myself agreeing with her-much to my own surprise.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Thank you. I think the use of conscience is along the same lines as the free will that Marco Polo referred to. And that formation of conscience is the use of reason and faith together. Does that sound correct? Still trying to wrap my mind around a few things. If I use reason to decide where to place my faith, am I not placing my own reason “on top” of all else? I’m missing something, I suspect.

Well, close. I think we all have filters in our reasoning that are made up of our life’s experiences, tendencies, cultural influences, etc. We don’t live in a vacuum, so to speak. So, what we have to do is replace all these filters with the filter of the Church’s constant teaching. Whatever we read, hear, etc., should be matched up to that. If it doesn’t, then we have to give religious assent to the Church’s teachings and reexamine where we may be in error. Does that help?

 

[TommyWommy]

Well, close. I think we all have filters in our reasoning that are made up of our life’s experiences, tendencies, cultural influences, etc. We don’t live in a vacuum, so to speak. So, what we have to do is replace all these filters with the filter of the Church’s constant teaching. Whatever we read, hear, etc., should be matched up to that. If it doesn’t, then we have to give religious assent to the Church’s teachings and reexamine where we may be in error. Does that help?

It makes sense that we need to use Church teachings to keep our own reason “in check” thereby submitting to the Church’s authority.

I think the Protestant’s point was thus: when presented with options A, B, C or D, it is ultimately up to me to do my best to decide which option is right for me to choose. That decision is an “executive” or “authoritative” decision in my life, since no one else can decide it for me. In that respect, Protestants and Catholics are the same, and are both being the “ultimate” authority in making a decision (regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong).

Another way to say it is that ultimately, I have to decide what to believe, even if that belief is to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. The Protestant, at some point, ultimately had to decide to submit to Sola Scriptura. So, we both made “executive” “authoritative” decisions for our lives. Therefore, says the Protestant, we are both, as individuals, exercising the “final word” in what is “right” and “interpreting” for ourselves what the truth is.

What it boils down to for him is that I interpret the Catholic Church to be right, and he interprets his denomination to be right, so, ultimately, we’re both using private interpretation.

 

[JRKH]

There’s probably a thread on this, but I didn’t find it. So, here goes:

Since each individual has to make a decision regarding which religion is right, doesn’t that mean that the individual is the ultimate final authority?

In terms of Scripture alone vs. Scripture plus Tradition, each individual has to decide which side of the fence to be on.

In terms of Christianity vs. other religions or any religion at all, the individual has to decide which is right.

Even to be “undecided” requires a choice and a “final answer.” If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Final authority.

Thus, when a Catholic objects to the Protestant being in the “every-man-his-own-pope” camp, the Protestant can claim a double standard and say, "You Catholics essentially do the same thing. You as a Catholic individual decide and “declare” the Catholic Church and its interpretations to be right. You “decide” to place yourself under her authority. So, ultimately, you also are making the “final call.” Ultimate authority.

How should I, as a Catholic, respond to this?

Frankly I would say that in many senses this is quite true. However it has it’s limits for I can give away that “final authority” to another or I can retain it for myself.

Lets take one of my favorite Bible passages as an example. Mt 18:15-17:
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector.
In this passage there is a disagreement between two brothers in Christ.
In the first step, the two discuss it privately and the one in the wrong refuses to accept the judgement of the other, thus retaining his own authority.
In the second step the one in the wrong refuses to accept the judgement of several others, again retaining authority to himself.
Finally the matter is taken to The Church - and Christ tells us to “Listen to The Church”, that is to surrender our own authority to that of Christ in His Church. failing to do so results in seperation from Christ in His Church.

When we, as catholics, make that decision to surrender our own personal authority to The Church, we do so in humble obedience to Christ.

Now others will say they surrender their authority to Christ directly and look only to His Word in Scripture. Which is fine, until two or more disagree on doctrinal matters, each claiming “spirit guidance” and Scriptural basis for their position. Then problems begin to crop up.
If the disagreement is resolved to everyones satisfaction then so much the good, BUT if the disagreement is NOT resolved and the two groups seperate rather than submit to arbitration by the Church (community) then it is obvious that somebody has placed their own authority above that of The Church (ecclesia-community).

In the Catholic Church I would wager that the vast majority of Catholics either don’t know or full understand all of the teachings of The Church. This would be just as true of converts as of cradle catholics. Yet we all accept these teachings - Why - because we submit our own personal opinions/ignorance/views, in other words authority, to that of The Church in Christ.

Not sure this is exactly what you were looking for but I hope at least some helps.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Yes, thank you, I think it makes some sense. Our free will is a type of God-given authority. Faith and reason have to work together. I guess I was thinking that one’s use of reason equates to “turning to oneself” whether Catholic or Protestant. Whether I am honest, dishonest, correct or incorrect, I am still turning to my own reason and deciding what “I” think is the best placement of my faith. That is where I’m getting “stuck.” I’m also wondering if Relativism somehow factors into this issue.

I think that in the protestant world there is this ability to pick and choose what one believes - all based on Scripture. In some sense this accounts for the many variations of Protestantism in the world. There are some Catholics who fall into this trap. They are commonly refered to as "cafeteria catholics. In Protestantism though they simply form new churches, and then the individuals “church shop” until they find a pastor/community that fits them.

In Catholicism, true Catholicism, we accept the authority, given by Christ to His Church to bind and loose, and then accept the teachings issued from that authority. We don’t take each teaching, satisfy ourselves it’s true and THEN acept the authority of The Church because it agrees with us.

Peace
James

 

[TommyWommy]

I think that in the protestant world there is this ability to pick and choose what one believes - all based on Scripture. In some sense this accounts for the many variations of Protestantism in the world. There are some Catholics who fall into this trap. They are commonly refered to as "cafeteria catholics. In Protestantism though they simply form new churches, and then the individuals “church shop” until they find a pastor/community that fits them.

In Catholicism, true Catholicism, we accept the authority, given by Christ to His Church to bind and loose, and then accept the teachings issued from that authority. We don’t take each teaching, satisfy ourselves it’s true and THEN acept the authority of The Church because it agrees with us.

Peace
James

I agree with you. I suspect my Protestant friend would respond by saying, “But you also ‘picked and chose.’ The only difference is that you ‘picked’ the option to do what the CC says rather than Islam, Hinduism, Protestantism, etc. Your personal opinion (i.e. private interpretation) is that submitting to the CC is the way to go. If it wasn’t your personal opinion, it would not have been your choice. In that sense, you are the same as anyone else, including the Cafeteria Catholic or Protestant. Everyone is his/her own authority, because we ultimately decide which way to turn, for better or for worse.”

I think he’s right in some respects. We have to choose because God gave us the ability to choose. So, the way I’m looking at it currently is to say, “We all have the ultimate authority (and responsibility) to choose who or what our authority will be.”

 

[JRKH]

I agree with you. I suspect my Protestant friend would respond by saying, “But you also ‘picked and chose.’ The only difference is that you ‘picked’ the option to do what the CC says rather than Islam, Hinduism, Protestantism, etc. Your personal opinion (i.e. private interpretation) is that submitting to the CC is the way to go. If it wasn’t your personal opinion, it would not have been your choice. In that sense, you are the same as anyone else, including the Cafeteria Catholic or Protestant. Everyone is his/her own authority, because we ultimately decide which way to turn, for better or for worse.”

I think he’s right in some respects. We have to choose because God gave us the ability to choose. So, the way I’m looking at it currently is to say, “We all have the ultimate authority (and responsibility) to choose who or what our authority will be.”

Precisely. Although I have to agree with an earlier poster who said that our decision is NOT based on personal interpretation but on objective Truth.
I mean, if I were to make a list of church teachings that I have a problem with, or would do differently, or think should or should not be dogmatically declared, it would be a somewhat different Church. But that would be placing myself in the place of the community which made these determinations over many centuries and have carefully defined them.

As you say in the last paragraph, ultimately we have to “Choose” God and then to humbly submit ourselves to Him in obedience.

Peace
James

 

[TommyWommy]

Precisely. Although I have to agree with an earlier poster who said that our decision is NOT based on personal interpretation but on objective Truth.

Agreed (I assume by “our” you mean “Catholic”). Otherwise we cross over into the realm of relativism in which “your choice or interpretation is as valid as my choice or interpretation.” Somebody has to be wrong sometime.

 

[JRKH]

Agreed (I assume by “our” you mean “Catholic”). Otherwise we cross over into the realm of relativism in which “your choice or interpretation is as valid as my choice or interpretation.” Somebody has to be wrong sometime.

Exactly and and this recognition of one Truth always leads me back to Mt 18:15-18 as the instruction and Acts 15 as the example of how The Church (Ecclesia), in the persons of the Leaders of The Church, made the determination, led by The Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[teak421]

There’s probably a thread on this, but I didn’t find it. So, here goes:

Since each individual has to make a decision regarding which religion is right, doesn’t that mean that the individual is the ultimate final authority?

In terms of Scripture alone vs. Scripture plus Tradition, each individual has to decide which side of the fence to be on.

In terms of Christianity vs. other religions or any religion at all, the individual has to decide which is right.

Even to be “undecided” requires a choice and a “final answer.” If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. Final authority.

Thus, when a Catholic objects to the Protestant being in the “every-man-his-own-pope” camp, the Protestant can claim a double standard and say, "You Catholics essentially do the same thing. You as a Catholic individual decide and “declare” the Catholic Church and its interpretations to be right. You “decide” to place yourself under her authority. So, ultimately, you also are making the “final call.” Ultimate authority.

How should I, as a Catholic, respond to this?

It is true that I (using free will) made a decision with faith and reason to assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church… And, its possible to “lean on my own understanding…” in that decision like any other. But, for me what happened was through faith and reason as I actually research the teachings I realized that Christianity is bigger than me… and that although I think I’m pretty smart, I could not possibly understand the full scope of Christianity like a collective body (RC Church).

When I was my own Pope, I would read scripture and determine which doctrines I wanted to follow… OR, I would listen to my former Pastor (Pope) and either agree or disagree with his teachings… Is this logical that each person would determine their own doctrines based on the traditions of the Christian sect they belonged too? Or, personal reading of Scripture? I don’t think so… It seems more reasonable that Christ instituted a Church to assist humankind on its journey through salvation history. And, that same Holy Spirit that informed and guided the writers of the Bible is working in the Roman Catholic Church.

So, yes… I had to make a choice, but I believe I made this choice with faith and reason and by the Graces that God gave me. There is no question that I would have never thought I would be teaching RCIA 3 years ago. But, I am. And, its wonderful!

• Michael

 

[fhansen]

I agree with you. I suspect my Protestant friend would respond by saying, “But you also ‘picked and chose.’ The only difference is that you ‘picked’ the option to do what the CC says rather than Islam, Hinduism, Protestantism, etc. Your personal opinion (i.e. private interpretation) is that submitting to the CC is the way to go. If it wasn’t your personal opinion, it would not have been your choice. In that sense, you are the same as anyone else, including the Cafeteria Catholic or Protestant. Everyone is his/her own authority, because we ultimately decide which way to turn, for better or for worse.”

I think he’s right in some respects. We have to choose because God gave us the ability to choose. So, the way I’m looking at it currently is to say, “We all have the ultimate authority (and responsibility) to choose who or what our authority will be.”

When it comes to Protestantism vs Catholicism, Protestantism is no a longer choice for me, based on logic alone; i.e. if not for Catholicism I’d have to forsake Christianity altogether because 1) Protestantism is based on an authority (Scripture) that produces very ambiguous understanding of the faith on its own, as demonstrated by the various opinions of its readers and churches, and 2) it bypasses a direct historical connection to the first authority-Jesus Christ.

But to know that any religion is true we still have to depend on our own understanding- and willingness to understand regardless of where it leads us-coupled with, in the case of Christianity, grace.