What's Your Authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct. It would make no sense to do so. It would mean Jesus was not perfect nor was his Church. That is why it could never happen.
…Jesus did not set it up that way!

Could he have? Yes! He could have done it any way he chose. Why did he do it that way?🤷

Another Mystery of our faith.
What do you mean you’re not sure why he did it that way? Faith is the answer to mystery, right?
 
But I don’t think that’s what you were necessarily suggesting anyway.
Correct. I was speaking of my own journey. No intention to imply anything beyond that.
I am curious if you don’t mind sharing just a few specific examples, What are some things you know for sure vs what many things you take by faith?
I’ve taken some time to reflect on your question of what I know for sure versus what I take by faith. I would say the things I know for sure I only know because of my faith. For instance, that there is a God who created me. I know this with absolute certainty, but only insomuch as I have faith.

As I mentioned previously, authority was one that I initially took by faith. I had a moral certainty that the CC had the authority it claimed. This moral certainty, based largely on faith and reason, was sufficient for me to act and submit to the Church’s authority. Over time, while actively living the faith (as best as a sinful man can) in accordance with Church teaching, I have grown in confidence to a degree of absolute certainty. Now, I know that for some folks absolute certainty would require that I had been there myself to see Jesus establish the Church and identify it as the CC. However, I do not believe that my own witness is a required prerequisite for such an absolute certainty on my part. My confidence is based on faith and reason. For me, this is enough.

The Eucharist is another one that I originally did not have absolute certainty. After study and prayer, my faith and reason led me to a moral certainty. I eventually came to an absolute certainty in the Real Presence as I matured in my faith. I will say that reason, in some cases like the Eucharist, will only take me so far. Faith will carry me the rest of the way. I am no less absolute in my certainty because I take on faith what is mysterious and beyond reason. I will admit that there are times I doubt. Times in which I have to ask our Lord to help my unbelief. But, these times of doubt do not shake the absoluteness of this truth or my absolute certainty when I have no doubt. I know this sounds contradictory at glance. However, life is fluid. I stumble and stand from day to day.

That I will go to heaven is something I only have a moral certainty about. I do not have an absolute certainty, because I am not my judge. God alone will make the call. Faith and reason at most will give me a moral certainty on this matter.

I hope I’ve addressed your question adequately and not just rambled on. Thank you for the question. It has been a valuable reflection tool.
 
I’ve taken some time to reflect on your question of what I know for sure versus what I take by faith. I would say the things I know for sure I only know because of my faith. For instance, that there is a God who created me. I know this with absolute certainty, but only insomuch as I have faith.

As I mentioned previously, authority was one that I initially took by faith. I had a moral certainty that the CC had the authority it claimed. This moral certainty, based largely on faith and reason, was sufficient for me to act and submit to the Church’s authority. Over time, while actively living the faith (as best as a sinful man can) in accordance with Church teaching, I have grown in confidence to a degree of absolute certainty. Now, I know that for some folks **absolute certainty **would require that I had been there myself to see Jesus establish the Church and identify it as the CC. However, I do not believe that my own witness is a required prerequisite for such an absolute certainty on my part. My confidence is based on faith and reason. For me, this is enough.

The Eucharist is another one that I originally did not have absolute certainty. After study and prayer, my faith and reason led me to a moral certainty. I eventually came to an absolute certainty in the Real Presence as I matured in my faith. I will say that reason, in some cases like the Eucharist, will only take me so far. Faith will carry me the rest of the way. I am no less absolute in my certainty because I take on faith what is mysterious and beyond reason. I will admit that there are times I doubt. Times in which I have to ask our Lord to help my unbelief. But, these times of doubt do not shake the absoluteness of this truth or my absolute certainty when I have no doubt. I know this sounds contradictory at glance. However, life is fluid. I stumble and stand from day to day.

That I will go to heaven is something I only have a moral certainty about. I do not have an absolute certainty, because I am not my judge. God alone will make the call. Faith and reason at most will give me a moral certainty on this matter.

I hope I’ve addressed your question adequately and not just rambled on. Thank you for the question. It has been a valuable reflection tool.
Forgive me, I believe I’ve misused the concept of absolute certainty 🤷. I used the term “absolute certainty” originally, because it seemed to best describe my confidence on the things discussed. I do feel that I have such an absoluteness to my confidence, but I do not know if I am using the term as it is intended.:confused: I guess it comes down to that I have a enough certainty to believe to the point of obedience. 👍
 
Fr Thomas Dubay in Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995 examines certitude which is total certainty:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.”
 
Fr Thomas Dubay in Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995 examines certitude which is total certainty:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.”
Thank you for the info.

This helps clarify my position. The 3 traits would apply to my confidence in the things listed.
 
Forgive me, I believe I’ve misused the concept of absolute certainty 🤷. I used the term “absolute certainty” originally, because it seemed to best describe my confidence on the things discussed. I do feel that I have such an absoluteness to my confidence, but I do not know if I am using the term as it is intended.:confused: I guess it comes down to that I have a enough certainty to believe to the point of obedience. 👍
Thanks Bayou Catholic. Just wanted you to know I read your other post too. Though our lifelong journeys have yet to completely converge of course, I’m not absolutely certain 🙂 we are actually all THAT far apart. As I believe none of us could be at whatever point we are on our walks without the grace of God. God’s continued blessings and peace be with you always.
 
Hey, I never said Catholics put him before God. I was just saying that I think they look to the Church for more than just guidance. For instance, when it comes to forgiveness from sin, I’m going straight to God because he is ultimately the one I have sinned against. If we sin against our Father in His presence, should we not go to the Him instead of our brother?

If my son disobeyed me where I could see him and then his older sister came to me and said, “Daddy, he disobeyed you and told me to tell you he’s sorry,” I’m not going to tell my daughter to tell my son that I forgive him, but that he has to do 30 push-ups on the double! My son has a mouth, so let him face me! His sister is just a crutch for him because he’s afraid of me and doesn’t want to look me in the eye and talk to me. He should be afraid, but only to a certain degree. He should never be afraid that I would hurt him. I would never cause him harm, and he can always talk to me about anything without fear of my wrath. He’s my child and I love him just as much as my well-behaved daughter as I created them equally … we’ll skip the push-ups since you’re trembling and snotting so much from having to face your fears and ask me.

lol I know that’s not the perfect analogy, but it kinda makes sense to me as God is like the ultimate parent. I know you probably think I’m being too “butterflies and dandelions,” but I face the Lord with just as much conviction as the next guy when I confess directly to Him. Does the Catholic Church say that I’m not forgiven? or is Confession just required for Holy Communion?
Actually using your example, then why could you child not apologize and just ask God to forgive him then? Why does your child have to ask you for forgiveness are you God?

Of course you are not God, but are you not using God given authority? WE are given it as parents to teach and help our kids. How does your child know if he is forgiven or not? Simply when as you stated you tell him, and decide his punishment. A child cannot commit mortal sin.

What is the difference from a Priest, he hears your confession, and gives you prayers that could, dear I say fit the crime. The same as God set it up that we are here to help kids, our Priests help us.

Yes to your second question, If you are in a state of mortal sin and you don’t confess and are given absolution for your sin, you cannot receive the body and blood of Christ, in a state of moral sin you are not worthy. IMHO we are never worthy, but never in a state of mortal sin.

Next question is your sin forgiven? Don’t know. Depends what the Priest says. What the Holy Spirit has guided him to say. How do we know the Holy Spirit guides him to hold or bound sin? Jesus said it. To you I give the power to forgive sin, whose you forgive is forgiven in my name, bound is held in my name.

Tell me when you confess, how do you know if your sin is bound or forgiven? Do you claim the power of the Holy Spirit to be sure? If so where did God give you that to hold or lose your own sin, and why give it to the Apostles and Priests if we can do it ourselves?

So we showed you scripture where Jesus gave the Priest indeed the power to bind or loose sin, now you show me where he gave us the power or bind or loose mortal sin on ourselves. Thanks:D
 
This may be difficult for the literal to understand, but it is explained by 1Jn.5:4, “For whatsoever is born of God over cometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, that is our faith”.

This is how it works. The one who is born of God has the victory that Jesus achieved. He said all authority is given unto Him. Therefore if I am under His authority I am able to use that authority by faith (in His name)

Hope this helps
Okay lets say you have his authority and are able to use it, by the way I truly don’t disagree with you at all on this. (are you surprised:D). We are all given authority from God to spread the good news, we are all called to be disciples of the faith.

Now comes the catch, (you knew it was coming right:p) What kind of authority do you have.

We agree to spread the good news, we both have this, to bring up or kids in the faith, we even have the authority to heal in his name, have you not ever prayed for someone, and God answered that prayer?

Now that we agree on what we have, lets talk on what we don’t have.

Can you turn regular wine and bread into the true living bread of Christ? I can’t,
Can you forgiven my sins in the NAME of God? I can’t. I can forgive you, but can’t give you absolution from God. And can’t give it to myself either.

Can you marry me in the RCC?

Can you give me last Rites (by the way I can in a state of emergency only) Baptism included there. But only in the case of possible death, and no Priest around.

Can I give you a valid confirmation in the CC? Nope! Only a Bishop.

Can I lay my hands on you and give you the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sins, etc? Nope, I do not Apostolic Succession to do so. God never gave me that power, did he give it to you? If so, How and when?

Well that’s pretty much the Sacrament of the RCC.
 
Whenever I am involved in conversations with non-Catholic Christians I go straight to the authority question.
Have you tried instead talking about hobbies and common interests, such as favorite works of music or charity work? Or getting to know a person before immediately challenging their faith? Or maybe just having several genuine conversations with the intent of getting to know them well, not trying to poke holes in their worldview? Because as satisfying as it is to “win” an ideological argument, it’s not the same as winning souls. I find most people are drawn in by seeing how well the Truth is lived, not how well it’s debated.
 
No I don’t believe we are orphans with the Holy Spirit within us. Do I believe it’s possible that even none of us holds the correct understandings as things are meant to be? Yes it’s possible because we’re mere finite human beings trying to prove by faith the truths of an infinite being God. Do I believe God understands us though and that we are all dependent on His mercy in the end. Yes to that too.
If we are left as mere humans trying to prove by faith and truth an infinite being God, we are indeed left orphans. I have to totally disagree with you.

Tell me how do you feel you have the power to Prove by your faith and truth that God exists. Because if you have this power PLEASE use it. I beg you. Go on line and use this power of your faith and truth and make believers of all who do not believe in God.

Because Jesus Christ on earth could not even do it. And he died and came back, and people still denied him.

But I do disagree that NONE of us hold the correct understandings of things that are meant to be. God left us the Church, so we are taught all we need to know, Do you think Jesus left something out? With his Church we are PROMISED the FULLNESS of the truth. That promise of the HS came from Jesus and that HS came to the CC on the day of Pentecost.
 
What do you mean you’re not sure why he did it that way? Faith is the answer to mystery, right?
Not in the terms I am thinking. Let me explain.

How is the Trinity the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but yet only one God. I cannot full explain this mystery, but it is not because of my lack of faith, it is my lack of understanding.

Why? Because Jesus has not fully revealed this in human terms to us yet.

How is Christ and his Church One? I just know they are. Has to do with the Holy Spirit leading us in the Spiritual World, but anyway another topic.

How the Eucharist can become the true body and blood of Christ, I know its true, but how its done is a mystery of my faith.

Why Jesus came down from heaven and died for my salvation, Why did he have to be crucified on the cross, and suffer for my sins? Do you know why he had to suffer for my sins? Why could he just not have said, its cool, your are forgiven. Why did his Father set it up that way? Can you answer that? Does your faith answer every mystery?

My faith is not a answer to the mystery of God, my faith is what keeps me believing in the answers I do not have, and what I do not understand. I know there is a answer to these mysteries and it is not my faith, the answer is truths that has yet to be revealed to me by Christ.

(unless I am misunderstanding your question, I have been known to do that at times:o:D).
 
Then start taking the Lord seriously:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)

So the rock is St Peter and since even the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, so who is yateanieys to presume that Christ never instituted his Church, unassailable by even the devil?
.
In defining Christ’s teaching, the Pope has Christ’s authority which cannot be denied except for personal pride like the devil – “I will not serve”, as Christ specifically mandated and conferred “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:18-20).
Except like all of those so misled that they put there own misinterpretations before the specific instructions of Jesus, faithfully recorded by His chosen Apostles – all of those misled by the multitude of self-proclaimers placing themselves as greater than Jesus

Himself while myopically identifying themselves as “followers”.

Why the speculation? His Apostles were specifically mandated to “teach all nations” and only the baptised may so partake of this sacrament which can be administered only by a validly ordained priest.
I was just thinking about this post. Was it God’s intention to make one man the supreme leader? Why then send the Holy Spirit? Was it God’s intention to have an earthly king to rule over his nation (Israel) for Him? Or did the people say “Give us a king so that we might be like all the other nations”? Did some Christians say "Give us a supreme pontif (bridge) that we might be like all the other (pagan) religions?

In Mt.23:8, Jesus instructs: “be not ye (plural) called rabbi: for one is your Master, that is Christ; and ye are all brethren”.
This is saying that all are to be equal and no one is to be a teacher over the others.

And then in v.10 Jesus again says "Neither be ye (plural) called masters: for one is your

Master, that is Christ".

But v.9 is different for it is in the singular. “And call no (one) man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”. It is no problem to call your Pastors(plural) “Fathers”(plural), but there is not to be one man on earth to be singled out as the one(holy) Father, for “one is your father, which is in heaven”.

Is this making sense to anyone?
 
Was it God’s intention to make one man the supreme leader?.. Was it God’s intention to have an earthly king to rule over his nation (Israel) for Him?
Yes, and God reestablished His kingdom with a supreme leader as promised.

“For to us a child is born, to us a song is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Pease.’ Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from the time forth and for evermore. The Zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this. Is 9:6-7 (RSVCE)

“He will be great, and be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Lk 1:32 (RSVCE)

You see, for Catholics, Jesus is the supreme Leader. The King He intended to rule over us both in Heaven and on Earth. If by “earthly king” you mean the pope, then you grossly misunderstand the role of the pope.
Why then send the Holy Spirit?
To guide His Church… or one could say His kingdom on earth. Jn 14:16; Jn 16:13; Acts 15:28.
Did some Christians say "Give us a supreme pontif (bridge) that we might be like all the other (pagan) religions?
I don’t know about being like other pagan religions. 🤷 I do know that Jesus reestablished the Davidic kingdom as promised by God (See above). :thumbsup:That kingdom had ministers and a primary one (Is 22:15-23 & Mt16: 17-19). We can dive into the Queen Mother later.😉

It has nothing to do with what “some Christians” asked for. It is everything to do with what Jesus himself gave us.
In Mt.23:8, Jesus instructs: “be not ye (plural) called rabbi: for one is your Master, that is Christ; and ye are all brethren”.
This is saying that all are to be equal and no one is to be a teacher over the others.
Is your interpretation of this passage infallible?
And then in v.10 Jesus again says “Neither be ye (plural) called masters: for one is your Master, that is Christ”.
We don’t call anyone in the Church master, but the Lord himself. The rest of us are just servants and some the servant of servants.
But v.9 is different for it is in the singular. “And call no (one) man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”. It is no problem to call your Pastors(plural) “Fathers”(plural), but there is not to be one man on earth to be singled out as the one(holy) Father, for “one is your father, which is in heaven”.
Here is a list of Holy Spirit inspired NT verses which call men, both in the singular and the plural, father(s).Was Jesus contradicting himself or is there more to it than you interpret?

Mt 3:9
Acts 7:2
Acts 21:40, 22:1
Rom 4:16-17
1 Cor 4:14-15 (Paul even calls himself “father here”)
1 Tim 1:2
Tit 1:4
Heb 12:7-9
Lk 14:26
1 Thess 2:11
Philem 10
1 Jn 2:13, 14

As for as others being holy… 1 pt 1:15-16, Are we not participants of the His divine nature? 2 pt 1:4.

Of course Catholics do not believe the holy Father (Pope) is in the same since Holy as our Lord is. Rather, the office of pope is holy, because it was established by God himself.
Is this making sense to anyone?
How about for you? Hope this helps. Sorry, I have time restraints this AM and limited to how much a I could respond too.
 
Why Jesus came down from heaven and died for my salvation, Why did he have to be crucified on the cross, and suffer for my sins? Do you know why he had to suffer for my sins? Why could he just not have said, its cool, your are forgiven. Why did his Father set it up that way? Can you answer that? Does your faith answer every mystery?
Well, I see I wasn’t specific enough 😛 I’m pretty sure I meant to say “answer to that mystery” and accidentally left “that” out? I denno.

Anyway, my faith doesn’t satisfy every mystery, no, but in response to the question of why, it absolutely does!

I do agree that divine processes are completely mysterious; perfection is mysterious; the concept of an eternal continuum is mysterious. Even, when compared to the things we do know about the physical dimension, there are infinitely more things that we don’t know about it, and much less about the spiritual dimension. In fact, not much at all about the spirit place is comprehensible so long as our material minds anchor our souls to the material world. I’ll agree that we are capable of understanding some of it. I’d imagine that most of us have either heard, seen, or experienced a few of the countless revival, revelation and restoration stories attributed to the work of God. Personally, what follows is a feeling I can’t quite put into words; it’s like my soul leaps for joy when I experience such things or even hear of someone else’s experience. But, comprehending the true impact of it all is impossible until we manage to shake loose the husk of our physical bodies.

As far as those 5 or 6 consecutive questions you asked, I had to resist the urge to just answer because 🙂 To elaborate on that, the answer to all of those questions is “because it was necessary according to the Word of God.” There is no mystery for me when it comes to why. I have faith that however it played out was exactly how it should have played out and how it was going to play out from the beginning. That’s also regardless of how far-removed the current biblical account may be from the actual Word of God.

If we were meant to know more, then we would, but since we don’t (and overlooking the unintended support of any misconception) the answer to questions like why did God do this a certain way is because the Word of God has expressed it all so since the beginning of time. That’s why some people affirm hopefulness by saying “If the Lord is willing!” It means that the will of God simply is, but we have no clue what it entails. We will know it eventually, but God has always known His will in its entirety. It makes sense to me that there hasn’t been an actual decision on God’s part since the godhead collectively decided to make man in Their image. Since the decision that resulted in our immaculate inception, God has always done exactly what needed to be done at exactly the right time; we just have that tendency to screw it up. Still, God has always known every mistake we’ve made as well as those we’ve yet to make. God’s will is unerring; to err is human.

Now, as far as how it’s all done, as in through what spiritual mediums does the Word of God decree the will of God? or how did Jesus perform miracles on Earth? or was one day of Creation equal to one solar day or a thousands of years of terraformation and decay? I haven’t the slightest idea other than a vague explanation that’s faith-based on something I can’t wrap my mind around. I believe the soul is somewhat aware, but the mind is stubborn and prone to decay—easily confused—incredibly gullible and susceptible to temptation. This where faith plays a major role. Why?

…because.
 
I was just thinking about this post. Was it God’s intention to make one man the supreme leader? Why then send the Holy Spirit? Was it God’s intention to have an earthly king to rule over his nation (Israel) for Him? Or did the people say “Give us a king so that we might be like all the other nations”? Did some Christians say "Give us a supreme pontif (bridge) that we might be like all the other (pagan) religions?
How many Protestant denominations claim to be led by the Holy Spirit? Is there one who does not make this claim? How, would you say, is this working out in terms of unity of belief? The evidence is before our very eyes. Do you think that this was Christ’s intention?

The Pope is not the king. Christ is the King and the Pope is his representative on earth; the Royal Steward. Big difference. His role is “servant of the servants of God”, not King. His purpose is unity. Christ sent the Holy Spirit to lead his representatives on earth into all truth, protecting them from error.
In Mt.23:8, Jesus instructs: “be not ye (plural) called rabbi: for one is your Master, that is Christ; and ye are all brethren”.
This is saying that all are to be equal and no one is to be a teacher over the others.

And then in v.10 Jesus again says "Neither be ye (plural) called masters: for one is your

Master, that is Christ".

But v.9 is different for it is in the singular. “And call no (one) man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”. It is no problem to call your Pastors(plural) “Fathers”(plural), but there is not to be one man on earth to be singled out as the one(holy) Father, for “one is your father, which is in heaven”.

Is this making sense to anyone?
Honestly, I am surprised that this argument is still being used. I am dumbfounded that you would think that the plural use of a word is fine but not the singular. How can we refer to them collectively as fathers if none of them, singularly, can be called father?

Can you refer to your father as “father”? 🤷
 
I was just thinking about this post. Was it God’s intention to make one man the supreme leader? Why then send the Holy Spirit? Was it God’s intention to have an earthly king to rule over his nation (Israel) for Him?

He changed Simon’s name to Cephas/Peter, and gave a charge, similar to what happened to Abram and Jacob:

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…
. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 1**9 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”
Or did the people say “Give us a king so that we might be like all the other nations”? Did some Christians say "Give us a supreme pontif (bridge) that we might be like all the other (pagan) religions?
 
I
In Mt.23:8, Jesus instructs: “be not ye (plural) called rabbi: for one is your Master, that is Christ; and ye are all brethren”.
This is saying that all are to be equal and no one is to be a teacher over the others.

And then in v.10 Jesus again says "Neither be ye (plural) called masters: for one is your

Master, that is Christ".

But v.9 is different for it is in the singular. “And call no (one) man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven”. It is no problem to call your Pastors(plural) “Fathers”(plural), but there is not to be one man on earth to be singled out as the one(holy) Father, for “one is your father, which is in heaven”.

Is this making sense to anyone?
Let me share you this…Eazy, and this was written by a protestant:

calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/stanley-hauerwas-on-reformation-sunday/

For example, I often point out that at least Catholics have the magisterial office of the Bishop of Rome to remind them that disunity is a sin. You should not overlook the significance that in several important documents of late, John Paul II has confessed the Catholic sin for the Reformation. Where are the Protestants capable of doing likewise? We Protestants feel no sin for the disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to confess our sin for the continuing disunity of the Reformation. We would not know how to do that because we have no experience of unity.

The magisterial office — we Protestants often forget — is not a matter of constraining or limiting diversity in the name of unity. The office of the Bishop of Rome is to ensure that when Christians move from Durham, North Carolina to Syracuse, New York, they have some confidence when they go to church that they will be worshiping the same God. Because Catholics have an office of unity, they do not need to restrain the gifts of the Spirit.

This creates a quite different attitude among Catholics about their relation to Christian tradition and the wider world. Protestants look over to Christian tradition and say, ‘How much of this do we have to believe in order to remain identifiably Christian?’ That’s the reason why Protestants are always tempted to rationalism: we think that Christianity is to be identified with sets of beliefs more than with the unity of the Spirit occasioned through sacrament.

Moreover, once Christianity becomes reduced to a matter of belief, as it clearly has for Protestants, we cannot resist questions of whether those beliefs are as true or useful as other beliefs we also entertain. Once such questions are raised, it does not matter what the answer turns out in a given case. As James Edwards observes, “Once religious beliefs start to compete with other beliefs, then religious believers are — and will know themselves to be — mongerers of values. They too are denizens of the mall, selling and shopping and buying along with the rest of us.”

In contrast, Catholics do not begin with the question of “How much do we need to believe?” but with the attitude “Look at all the wonderful stuff we get to believe!” Isn’t it wonderful to know that Mary was immaculately conceived in order to be the faithful servant of God’s new creation in Jesus Christ! She therefore becomes the firstborn of God’s new creation, our mother, the first member of God’s new community we call church. Isn’t it wonderful that God continued to act in the world through the appearances of Mary at Guadalupe! Mary must know something because she seems to always appear to peasants and, in particular, to peasant women who have the ability to see her. Most of us would not have the ability to see Mary because we’d be far too embarrassed by our vision.
 
Honestly, I am surprised that this argument is still being used. I am dumbfounded that you would think that the plural use of a word is fine but not the singular. How can we refer to them collectively as fathers if none of them, singularly, can be called father?

Can you refer to your father as “father”? 🤷
I think it might be a bit of a red herring to focus on the count-form of the title in this case. What’s your opinion on the verses that were quoted?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top