Who or What has the Final Authority?

[Chris_W]

AlanFromWichita:

I believe there are objective truths, and at least some of them can be attained. Since they are absolute, these kinds of truths are not subject to experience of any given beholder, although in order to communicate these truths with language certain assumptions will have to be made which, hopefully, are themselves sufficiently absolute to convey the message.

I agree. Absolute truths are such regardless of whether we believe it or not. I do not think assumptions have to be made though for us to learn them, except perhaps the initial leap of faith Christians make in believing in the Bible and in Jesus Christ as God (if that could be called an assumption). Beyond that, no assumptions are necessary, in my opinion.

AlanFromWichita:

The word “authority” has similar roots as “author.”… …Finally, if I ostensibly speak with the authority of God, then I’m claiming that what I am saying is infallible because God Himself has given me go-ahead to speak for Him. Whether you believe I have the authority I claim, or whether you accept my claimed authority as objectively truthful in any given situation, is up to you. You may feel compelled for various reasons to comply or reject what I say for various reasons – peer pressure, preconceived notions, contradictory information, threats or bribes – other than your acceptance of my claimed authority but that’s a different issue.

Indeed. The point I am trying to make is that if you believe objective truth exists (sounds like you do), then either we can know it with certainty, and therby claim to know love and serve God, who is identified as Truth, or we cannot. I believe we can, which is why God expects that of us. But I cannot see how personal reflection, prayer, etc can guarantee that we arrive at truth. I can however, understand how God enables us to know objective truth, (which I consider a necessity), by way of the infallible authority of the Catholic Church. It is the only method I have found that stands up to history, the Bible, and logic.

AlanFromWichita:

…I do not think Christians are left on their own. They do have worldly experts, they have the Church, and they have the indwelling Spirit.

What I do not accept, is that there is a specific man in this world who, because he has been elected according to a certain religious/political process, is THE one go-to man who can, in fact, speak as if he were God Himself to my specific issues… …But I don’t believe any one man, or group of men, can constitute an infallible authority…

Shall I conclud then, that you do not profess that the Bible is inspired by God and therefore without error? For if you believe it is without error, then you already acknowledge that God can and has given the gift of infallibility to man before (to the authors during their writing). If you do not profess this belief, then it does indeed change things, and I am off on the wrong foot in this discussion.

I should add that the Pope is not infallible “because he has been elected according to a certain religious/political process.” It is the office of the Papacy (and in some circumstances the Magisterium of the Catholic Church) that is protected from error…not the man…and regardless of how he may become Pope. Why would God provide this protection? Out of necessity, for our sakes, so we don’t wander through life seeking truths that we could never know were correct.

Please know I say these things in the spirit of Christian love. (I hope I don’t come across cold).

 

[Chris_W]

AlanFromWichita:

First, I am like 99% convinced that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but also pretty sure it is dangerous to take any particular English translation so literally that parsing words makes a significant difference.

Agreed. I mention Bible verses occassionally to bring points out, but I avoid verse slinging, as I find it generally unproductive.

AlanFromWichita:

People have told me many times that I should not try to, or presume to be able to understand, but just believe, and leave the “understanding” to the experts…

Bad advice indeed. We need to understand what we believe or sure enough someone will come along one day and rip the rug out from under us.

AlanFromWichita:

You ask “how” the truth is attainable? I believe we must study our scripture and the teachings of the Church, pray, and be transformed. As we continually strive for deeper union with Christ to His very core and motivations and not just be able to quote words from the Bible that he says, we will be increasingly guided by the Spirit of Truth which will teach us all things…

In theory this makes sense, and it certainly has the potential to arrive at truth, but one could never verify it. Along the way to understanding truth, a person could be seriously mistaken on issues that could affect his/her salvation, and he/she wouldn’t know it. Much less would that person be justified to share faith with others (as we are expected to do) when the possibility exists we could be sharing false doctrines, thereby making ourselves accountable for the error of others.

Are you certain of the truth of the beliefs you currently have? If so, please explain how. If not, do you think an uncertain knowlege of truth (God) is sufficient to meet God’s expectation of us (John 4: 24)?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Chris W:

I agree. Absolute truths are such regardless of whether we believe it or not. I do not think assumptions have to be made though for us to learn them, except perhaps the initial leap of faith Christians make in believing in the Bible and in Jesus Christ as God (if that could be called an assumption). Beyond that, no assumptions are necessary, in my opinion.

I do not disagree in this context. The assumptions I was talking about were assumption such as grammar and meaning of words, necessary to communicate those truths using human language.

Indeed. The point I am trying to make is that if you believe objective truth exists (sounds like you do), then either we can know it with certainty, and therby claim to know love and serve God, who is identified as Truth, or we cannot. I believe we can, which is why God expects that of us. But I cannot see how personal reflection, prayer, etc can guarantee that we arrive at truth. I can however, understand how God enables us to know objective truth, (which I consider a necessity), by way of the infallible authority of the Catholic Church. It is the only method I have found that stands up to history, the Bible, and logic.

Ahh, I think I see where we disconnected, maybe. Jesus chided us for wanting to see the Father, for having little faith, for if we have seen Him then we have seen the Father. I believe we have access to the truth through all those things (and by the way I intended to include scripture and for that matter tradition) but I don’t think we ever get to the point where we say, “I know it now” or “I have arrived” during the earthly phase of our life. I think our knowledge of truth is always lacking, or else we would actually know the mind of God. To know, or at least to believe to one’s satisfaction, that one knows God in a personal sort of way as the source of truth doesn’t bother me, as long as we agree that by “knowing Truth” this is what you mean as opposed to “knowing all Truth.” Perhaps that is self-evident.

I have not gotten to the point where I believe in the “infallibility” of the Church to the extent that I can trust her on any given issue over all other sources for a particular concrete decision in my own life, nor do I see that believing it would always be an advantage. Often the “explanations” given by the Church to help interpret a particular Bible passage, to me, are much more confusing and scholarly than the passage itself. Also, I don’t know the Pope intimately, in that I even know what he would think about a particular conrete situation in my life. All I know about him is generalities I can surmise from reading his writings and listening to his bishops and priests who are often divergent in their opinions. It gets slightly worse, but for now suffice it to say that the more I reflect and discuss it the farther I get from believing infallibility for my own sake. I have no problem if other people believe it for themselves, and I’m sure it is comforting to believe that there is an earthly Jesus-figure still alive who can answer ultimate questions. When Jesus left the world, as I recall, He said that since we could no longer ask Him things directly, we should pray to the Father in His name, and that He would send the Spirit to teach us. I haven’t made the leap to believing that because he left Peter in charge of building the Church that He intended us to believe in Peter’s words infallibly, or perhaps he would have said, “Peter is now the truth.”

Shall I conclud then, that you do not profess that the Bible is inspired by God and therefore without error? For if you believe it is without error, then you already acknowledge that God can and has given the gift of infallibility to man before (to the authors during their writing). If you do not profess this belief, then it does indeed change things, and I am off on the wrong foot in this discussion.

That is a good point, and I still wrestle with the “without error” part. I don’t believe God literally dictated word for word to the authors, but that he inspired their hearts and they wrote using their own intelligence within the context of their culture. This is just something I’ve made up though, with no education to the contrary. Also, translating over the years and across languages and into the many versions (even the many Catholic versions) could lead a person searching for the literal meaning coming up short. Here’s where I think the Church can really assist, in interpreting for the changing times and cultures. For sake of discussion, I am willing to agree for now that the Bible is without error, without necessarily knowing how it got to be that way. (As long as you don’t try to use my agreement as evidence of the authority of the Church. )

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Chris W:

I should add that the Pope is not infallible “because he has been elected according to a certain religious/political process.” It is the office of the Papacy (and in some circumstances the Magisterium of the Catholic Church) that is protected from error…not the man…and regardless of how he may become Pope. Why would God provide this protection? Out of necessity, for our sakes, so we don’t wander through life seeking truths that we could never know were correct.

That’s where faith comes in. It is the evidence of things not seen. If we knew the answers without any intellectual doubt, there would be no need for faith. I think if God wanted us to have an infallible guide here on earth, then He would have kept one here rather than spreading His perfect Word through fallible men.

Please know I say these things in the spirit of Christian love. (I hope I don’t come across cold).

If I could write a 100 page essay on my life circumstances, I could not begin to tell you how much this conversation has meant to me. This discussion, or debate, is hitting right at the heart of the matters I’ve been trying to discover for years, and is the first of its kind that is actually getting to the point of it all. Your concern for hearing what I have to say is a great honor to me, and is giving me great peace and joy, even while my actual beliefs are still in flux. Thank you for sticking with it this far.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Chris W:

Bad advice indeed. We need to understand what we believe or sure enough someone will come along one day and rip the rug out from under us.

Yes. This has happened to me, in a big way. I am recovering now, and am once again regaining a desire to live and seeing the precious gifts God has given me in my family and in other ways.

In theory this makes sense, and it certainly has the potential to arrive at truth, but one could never verify it. Along the way to understanding truth, a person could be seriously mistaken on issues that could affect his/her salvation, and he/she wouldn’t know it. Much less would that person be justified to share faith with others (as we are expected to do) when the possibility exists we could be sharing false doctrines, thereby making ourselves accountable for the error of others.

Most of the time I try to listen more than teach people with whom I am trying to interest in Catholicism. It’s uncanny. Actually I heard it as advice from a woman preacher, to other women on how to impress men. If a woman listens to a man attentively, he will walk away thinking she’s a genius. I’ve tried this myself and found that the more I draw out people on their own beliefs the more they seem to think I know something!

I don’t always live up to that ideal, as my dad used to say, I talk “just to hear my head rattle.” When I do tell someone about my beliefs, though, I am very careful not to attribute opinions to the Church that are my own.

About the accountability, I think of Jesus in Luke 17:1, “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.”

Are you certain of the truth of the beliefs you currently have? If so, please explain how. If not, do you think an uncertain knowlege of truth (God) is sufficient to meet God’s expectation of us (John 4: 24)?

Short answers: no, and yes.

The uncertainty keeps me humble. I love to learn new things, especially when they fly in the face of what I previously believed because then it feels like I’m making progress.

I don’t think I can ever presume to have a “complete” knowledge of truth (God) while on this planet. I may not be doing the best I can, but if I were I still would believe that to be the case. I don’t think God calls us to success, but to obedience. Some of the people who have blessed me amply are those who had no significant social status or book-knowledge. I believe God uses ragamuffins to bless us, and that if we are willing ragamuffins ourselves, we can bless others, thereby blessing Jesus Himself.

There were people who lined up to cook dinner for our family when my wife was sick and bedridden, and were a tremendous blessing. We later learned one had paid for an abortion for her friend, and another was just about to file for divorce. They blessed us, and I believe blessed Jesus, for what they did for us regardless of their own sinful states.

If you think it is impossible for a bad tree to bear good fruit, then you must logically conclude that anyone who bears good fruit must be good as far as God is concerned and we shouldn’t judge them.

OK, a bit off topic. Now what question was I answering again?

Are you certain of the truth of the beliefs you currently have? If so, please explain how.

Oh, yeah. I’m not certain. In fact, this is so weird that these thoughts are so fleeting that my fingers are just flying almost as if they are not under my control, and I forget what I type almost as quickly as I type it. The first time I actually realize what I’m saying as a whole is when I click on “submit” and then proofread it. So far when I proofread, it makes sense to me and I am pleased with it, but I can’t guarantee I’d answer the same questions the same way tomorrow. :whacky: I guess I’m just dumping, totally different than the carefully prepared style I normally use for anything I expect to become public.

Alan

 

[Victor]

Thanks everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut. I am the person who started this thread, and I just finished reading all the posts. They were very helpful, especially the cross-reference to Catholic Answers’ tract “Proving Inspiration.” It contains the type of logical analysis that I believe will appeal to me Protestant pastor friend. I am off to continue spreading the Truth to our separated bretheren (oops, sorry, separated brothers and sisters).

 

[Chris_W]

AlanfromWichita

I continue to enjoy our dialogue. I believe I understand where you are coming from, and I am convinced of the sincerity of your beliefs.

If I understand you correctly, you do believe objective truth exists. That is to say that truth is such regardless of whether anyone believes it. You do not however, necessarily believe that objective truth is attainable with any concrete certainty, although we can and should be on the continued path of learning, with the hope of higher understanding as we live out our lives. Hopefully that is a fair analysis of your posts.

Okay, so I would like to pose just a couple thoughts pertaining to that analysis, and then I’ll let this thread rest and we can all digest the discussions that have taken place:

To clarify, my position (and I believe what is the position of the Catholic Church) is as follows: No one can claim to know all truth. You are correct to say that this assertion would be to claim to understand completely the mind of God, which in essence would be to claim equality with God. Therefore, I do not claim that we can know all truth (far from it in fact). However, I do believe, with confidence, that the truths we do learn, we can know with absolute certainty. The only reason for this confidence is the acknowledgement that God enabled us to know for sure what is true and what is not true (and in fact expects this of us)…by way of the infallible guidance of the Catholic Church.

If you have not accepted that the Bible is without the possibility of error (as you indicate), which indeed requires faith to accept, then it is understandable why you have not accepted the infallibility of the Church. (This is not a criticism, but an observation). It des indeed require faith. But the two (Biblical and Papal infallibility) are inseparable. One necessarily requires the other. It is therefore logical and honest for you to say you do not have certainty of belief.

I will leave you with something I’ve been contemplating lately, regarding certainty of faith: I believe it is essential. The peace I have about my faith would not exist (did not exist) without this certainty. Partial truths, or the possibility of my faith consisting merely of partial truths (not ruling out the possibility of error), is not comforting to me. I think of Adam and Eve’s first sin. They were tricked by a partial truth. Satan didn’t lie to them. He merely presented them with only partial truth, and it resulted in the fall of all mankind, and required the suffering and death of Jesus to rectify the fall.

I will keep you in my prayers, Alan, and I ask that you keep me in yours.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Chris W:

If I understand you correctly, you do believe objective truth exists. That is to say that truth is such regardless of whether anyone believes it. You do not however, necessarily believe that objective truth is attainable with any concrete certainty, although we can and should be on the continued path of learning, with the hope of higher understanding as we live out our lives. Hopefully that is a fair analysis of your posts.

I agree. I might have said some other stuff too.

Okay, so I would like to pose just a couple thoughts pertaining to that analysis, and then I’ll let this thread rest and we can all digest the discussions that have taken place:

LOL! I guess the OP officially “let go” of the thread. I didn’t mean to hog it, but I get selfish that way. I would have been happy to see others jump in, even if to say they think I’m crazy.

… The only reason for this confidence is the acknowledgement that God enabled us to know for sure what is true and what is not true (and in fact expects this of us)…by way of the infallible guidance of the Catholic Church.

OK. About the farthest I can budge toward you this way is that the Church as a whole, meaning the entire body of Christ, is on a path against which the gates of heaven do not prevail.

… But the two (Biblical and Papal infallibility) are inseparable. One necessarily requires the other. It is therefore logical and honest for you to say you do not have certainty of belief.

Touche! That is a good point. I guess one reason I’m interested in the Bible is that I’ve studied it much more than what any Pope teaches, and I talk to a lot of Protestants so when I use the Bible as authority they buy into my arguments.

I will leave you with something I’ve been contemplating lately, regarding certainty of faith: I believe it is essential. The peace I have about my faith would not exist (did not exist) without this certainty. Partial truths, or the possibility of my faith consisting merely of partial truths (not ruling out the possibility of error), is not comforting to me. I think of Adam and Eve’s first sin. They were tricked by a partial truth. Satan didn’t lie to them. He merely presented them with only partial truth, and it resulted in the fall of all mankind, and required the suffering and death of Jesus to rectify the fall.

I believe that is peace-giving for you, and I am happy for you. Without betraying too much detail, I have gone through quite a “journey” in the last few years, and have had some extremely non-peaceful times. I have had to find peace despite unknowing, rather than in knowing like I used to. It helped me tremendously to learn about the apophatic tradition (what God isn’t as opposed to what God is) of the Church.

I will keep you in my prayers, Alan, and I ask that you keep me in yours.

Likewise.

Alan

 

[sparkle]

Victor:

I have been engaged in a dialogue with a Protestant pastor regarding “authority” on matters of faith and morals. He of course contends that Scripture is the ultimate authority. But he is intellectually honest and admits that he is engaged in circular reasoning when he uses Bible passages to support sola scriptura. However, he says that I am engaged in faulty reasoning when I use the Bible and the Church Fathers to prove that the Church is the ultimate arbiter. After all, he says, the Church is using its own interpretation of Bible passages to prove its own authority; and the Church Fathers could have simple made up their statements to support their desire to promote the Church’s authority. Does anyone have any thoughts about how to answer him?

No–except to simply say which came first the Church or the Bible? It’s obvious!

My mom argued the other night with me about this saying "you Catholics have the Church as your authority and we have “THE SCRIPTURE”…of course putting Catholics waaaaay down.
We all have to learn the right way to answer this. Short, succinct and to the point.

 

[Dismas2004]

I Timothy 3:15

If I am delayed, you ought to know how to behave in the household of God, the church of the living God, the PILLLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH!

TRUTH, GOD, BEAUTY, ALMIGHTY what ever you want to call He Who Created, the I AM - Is our Final Authority and since he revealed through Sacred Scripture, the foundation for Protestants, that the church is the TRUE foundation - his arguement fails! Sorry reverend. I know it’s painful, I went through it to when I converted, but it goes away once you embrace the Chruch of Christ! When talking with Protestants, clean, to the point, and scriptural aruments work best! They have the hardest time arguing with what scripture says or thie rmind is made up and not open for discussion which in that case would do you no good to further discussion, it would just be an argument. How’s that for a run on sentence with typos everywhere!

Take care and God Bless

 

[Victor]

A couple of the latest posts suggested that I support the Catholic position by saying that the Church came before the Bible or by citing Bible passages regarding the establishment of the Church. But keep in mind: THIS PROTESTANT PASTOR IS BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. HE ADMITS THAT THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS SUSPECT! He simply wants logical support (without circular reasoning) for the argument that the Catholic Church is the ultimate authority for Christians.

 

[Chris_W]

Victor:

A couple of the latest posts suggested that I support the Catholic position by saying that the Church came before the Bible or by citing Bible passages regarding the establishment of the Church. But keep in mind: THIS PROTESTANT PASTOR IS BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. HE ADMITS THAT THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS SUSPECT! He simply wants logical support (without circular reasoning) for the argument that the Catholic Church is the ultimate authority for Christians.

Difficult task, Victor, if he doesn’t believe in the inerrency of Scripture, and doesn’t see the evidence for the need of an external truth verifying source from so many Christians disagreeing with each other as to what the truth is.

The logic is very reasonable: If no external truth verifying source is necessary, then there are only two possibilities: Either all men of good will would agree (which obviously is not the case), or we don’t need to know the truth, which flatly contradicts scripture. What other choices are there?

It is my opinion, although I am no great apologist, that all you can do is to ask him how he can know with certainty what is and what is not truth, as I did with AlanfromWitchita. If he feels it is necessary to know for sure what the truth is, then you can approach him by asking how he accomplishes that objective. If, however he is not convinced that we can know for sure, or that this knowlege is even necesary, then you cannot accomplish what you have set out to do.

Best you can do is describe why you feel objective truth is in fact necessary, and attainable, and expected of us. The pray about it.

 

[Chris_W]

Re-reading my post I’m not sure I made the point as clearly as I would have liked:

If a person does not believe we need to know with certainty what is and what is not objective truth, then that person would be consistant in believing there is no need for an infallible authority external to the Bible. Or, to put it a different way, It is only if a person believes we need to know objective truth with certainty, that he can be convinced of the need for the authority of the Church (in my opinion).

 

[Dismas2004]

Victor:

A couple of the latest posts suggested that I support the Catholic position by saying that the Church came before the Bible or by citing Bible passages regarding the establishment of the Church. But keep in mind: THIS PROTESTANT PASTOR IS BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. HE ADMITS THAT THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS SUSPECT! **He simply wants logical support (without circular reasoning) for the argument that the Catholic Church is the ultimate authority for Christians./**QUOTE]

Then might I suggest reading Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. There is a good chapter that deals with this very subect and offers up a “spiral” reasoning argument rather than circular. The basis of it however is Hisotry and Logic and is quite ingenius. Karl Keating does a wonderful job there and it is a great book to have as resource.

You might also check out some of the Patristic Authors as well, specifical Iraenaeus of Lyon (I know I’m soelling that wrong) as well as Abrose, Augustine etc… Just google Church auhtority and one of the above mentioned people.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Chris W:

Re-reading my post I’m not sure I made the point as clearly as I would have liked:

If a person does not believe we need to know with certainty what is and what is not objective truth, then that person would be consistant in believing there is no need for an infallible authority external to the Bible. Or, to put it a different way, It is only if a person believes we need to know objective truth with certainty, that he can be convinced of the need for the authority of the Church (in my opinion).

Dear Chris W,

Please forgive me, but I could hardly resist chiming in. You may ignore me if you think I’m too obnoxious:

My faith does not require me to know for absolute certain what God would say about whether any concrete decision for me is good or bad, except to the ways He reveals Himself to me through my spirit and through other humans. If I had a one-stop shop where I could find out the definitive truth, with no question, and could simply submit my free will to its teaching, then that would be comforting. It would make things much simpler, and I would no longer have to worry about any sense of responsibility as long as I followed the teachings. I have often envied those who have it that simple, who can be absolutely convinced that they know what is good or evil, to the extent that God Himself knows.

Then again, I’ve heard another story a bit like this. There was a man and woman who did not know good from bad, and they were happy until they ate from the tree of knowledge, after which they knew right from wrong. Suddenly their eyes were opened, and they were no longer like innocent children. Christ said we must be like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven. Could He intended that His spirit could write the law of love on our hearts so that we may be freed from the law of sin and death, and thus return to paradise free from guilt?

Just a theory. I didn’t word that optimally but I have to go run an errand so I’'ll publish this draft.

Alan

 

[Chris_W]

Hi Alan,

I am not the least tired of our conversation. I rather enjoy it actually (and pleased it has been so cordial). That said, I completely disagree with everything you said (kidding ).

I agree that God has written His law on our hearts, and we probably do, deep down, have the ability to figure it out for ourselves. The problem is most of us are sinful enough that we cannot use that ability to the fullest. The vast majority of us need guidance. The fact you and I don’t see things eye to eye is evidence of that need, isn’t it?

I am earnest in prayer, Alan, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit even as I write this. I receive the sacraments regularly and live according to my beliefs (though not perfectly of course ). I get the impression you are a sincere Christian as well. So how could God have arranged things such that you and I do not agree? Wouldn’t God want harmony, even between just you and I, if we are both seeking Him?

I believe God does want that unity. I believe He arranged things so that we can do what He wants (to worship in spirit and in truth). The ONLY answer I have found that stands up to logic, history, and the Bible, is the Catholic answer. There is no other method even suggested that stands up to scrutiny.

I wish I could say something that would convince you of the infallible guidance of the Church. You say it would be nice to believe that. It is nice Alan. Although it does not eliminate the need for conscience and personal responsibility (as you kind of inferred), it does gives confidence of belief. It is comforting and peaceful. I am praying you will soon feel that comfort.

 

[sparkle]

Victor:

A couple of the latest posts suggested that I support the Catholic position by saying that the Church came before the Bible or by citing Bible passages regarding the establishment of the Church. But keep in mind: THIS PROTESTANT PASTOR IS BEING INTELLECTUALLY HONEST. HE ADMITS THAT THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS SUSPECT! He simply wants logical support (without circular reasoning) for the argument that the Catholic Church is the ultimate authority for Christians.

Maybe the LOGICAL support would come from looking at the Church Fathers and what they said. They were the closest to Christ!

Who knows the best (and simpliest) book on the Church Fathers?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Chris W:

I agree that God has written His law on our hearts, and we probably do, deep down, have the ability to figure it out for ourselves.

I’m not so sure about our “ability to figure it out” as I used to be, because that seems to imply pride. Maybe more like, “peace in knowing that we will be guided in right paths” regardless of our unknowing.

The problem is most of us are sinful enough that we cannot use that ability to the fullest. The vast majority of us need guidance. The fact you and I don’t see things eye to eye is evidence of that need, isn’t it?

I’m not sure if it is or not. So far I haven’t incurred any significant trauma because of our disagreement, and in fact if you agreed with me all along I’d miss out on a great discussion that drove me into a deeper understanding of my own faith.

I am earnest in prayer, Alan, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit even as I write this. I receive the sacraments regularly and live according to my beliefs (though not perfectly of course ). I get the impression you are a sincere Christian as well.

Thank you. Sometimes I’m not sure why I do this or say that, but I hope that however God wants to use me, my spirit will be ready to hear and respond to His.

So how could God have arranged things such that you and I do not agree? Wouldn’t God want harmony, even between just you and I, if we are both seeking Him?

Since I play music I hope you don’t mind a poetic interpretation of your question. Good harmony doesn’t imply unison. We may eventually converge on the same note, or cross in passing, but I think we all have our different talents and vocations. So we differ on infallibility, and probably not but maybe we might even disagree on some social issues. I trust you would help a person in need if you could, as would I, and neither of us condemns the other. To me that sounds like harmony.

As far as the “faith” I claim for not believing infallibility, maybe it is taking a step out of safety of the boat. Is it unrealistically presumptuous and prideful, or is it because I’m so anxious to come to Jesus that I don’t want to be constrained to stay with the others who think we should remain seated while the ride is in motion? Will I sink or swim? That is a risk I’ll have to take if I stand up in the boat or jump out of it.

I believe God does want that unity. I believe He arranged things so that we can do what He wants (to worship in spirit and in truth). The ONLY answer I have found that stands up to logic, history, and the Bible, is the Catholic answer. There is no other method even suggested that stands up to scrutiny.

It’s hard for me to know how much unity God wants; there are different parts in one body, but they have to work together. I think people can believe different things but work together. As a result of this forum I have a better appreciation for and greater respect for the Catholic answer, but I still have doubt that it stands up to scrutiny against logic and the Bible. I wouldn’t argue against history.

I wish I could say something that would convince you of the infallible guidance of the Church. You say it would be nice to believe that. It is nice Alan. Although it does not eliminate the need for conscience and personal responsibility (as you kind of inferred), it does gives confidence of belief. It is comforting and peaceful. I am praying you will soon feel that comfort.

I appreciate that, but as long as we respect each other as human beings and act out of love for God and each other, I’m not even convinced that’s what I want. My beliefs as well as my self-perceived faith level are changing, but my peace is increasing daily. I can see how it would be comforting, but right now the ride is not too stormy for me, and I’m enjoying it in my own way.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Chris_W]

AlanFromWichita:

I’m not so sure about our “ability to figure it out” as I used to be, because that seems to imply pride. Maybe more like, “peace in knowing that we will be guided in right paths” regardless of our unknowing.

Here’s where we see things a bit differently. Outside of an external source to check my beliefs against, I don’t understand that there is that peace. There was always some doubt that kept me from being free and confident to share the truth of Christ…a lingering fear that I might have been wrong.

AlanFromWichita:

So far I haven’t incurred any significant trauma because of our disagreement…

Perhaps you and I would agree on many things, but I can tell you from personal experience that this is not the case with a great many Christians. Issues like divorce, the Sacaments, especially Eucharist and Confession, the assurance of salvation, the meritorious value of good works, Purgatory, etc. all divide Christians. Some of these are a matter of the salvation of a soul. And there is but one method to check all these divisive beliefs against, the teaching of the Church. Without it, you nor I, nor anyone else can establish what God intends, and ultimately what it takes to get to Heaven. All beliefs are reduced to human opinion…a gamble based on how the person feels about things.

AlanFromWichita:

It’s hard for me to know how much unity God wants; there are different parts in one body, but they have to work together. I think people can believe different things but work together.

If you’re talking gifts of the Spirit great, we all have different vocations, all working together. But the division among Christian denominations is often much more significant than that.

I was in a thread not too long ago (on a less hospitable site) where people insisted I am going to Hell for what I believe. That is not a description of members of the same Body.

How much unity does God want? God said a house divided against itself will fall. What does that sound like? The Bible says God seeks those who worship Him to worship in spirit and in truth. Do you think when God defines truth, He means partial truths, or some slightly distorted version of truth? Or as much truth as the person is comfortable with? He said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. Wouldn’t confusion, argument, condemnation of each other and schism be considered a victory for the evil one?

Yet after 2000 years, there remains one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church who continues to teach the same thing she has taught since the time of the Apostles. Can you say other churches stay consistant in their teaching? It was not very long ago that nearly all protestant churches prohibited divorce. Now that it is more popular, nearly every single one approves of it. What Changed? Did God (Truth) change? Nope. But those churches are not protected from error. Now, if members of those churches are living in adultry (a serious sin) because of false teachings, will you still contend that differences in belief are not all that important?