Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[II_Paradox_II]

1. From a practical level, I fail to see how my position is much different from yours in some respects. For instance, your primary rule of faith is the magesterial teaching. However, for an average person, they get this magesterial teaching from either written documents, televised speeches or from local priests and bishops. Of these, the only source that can be actively questioned or clarification is the priest or bishop. However, they are not infallible in themselves therefore their opinions are based in their own interpretation of the first two sources or their immediate superiors. One does not get an infallible answer until they reach the magesterial level but even then there is no clear criteria for when the magesterium has spoken infallibly or whether the members of the magesterium are speaking as private theologians (I’m sure you know the disputes over just what is infallible teaching and not infallbile teaching. My goal is not to get a list from you, but to illustrate the conceptual problem that there is no clear infallible criteria for recognizing an infallable teaching). When combined with the mass of teachings coming from the church, some with liberal or heretical viewpoints (I would imagine from bishops speaking as private theologians though through church channels), how is the person in the pew supposed to easily reconcile all of this into a coherent system?

The average person in the pew relies on his own interpretation or someone else’s to know the teachings of the church. All other difficulties aside, I fail to see how infallibility really adds to the clarity of doctrine when it is not easily accessible nor easily recognizable.

In practice, even those who profess Sola Scriptura don’t really practice it. Most folks trust someone to help them understand. This is the nature of humanity.

This is not the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the Reformed churches. We acknowledge that the church is given to men to guide them and help them understand and that not all things are clear in scripture.

We trust people to help us understand, to teach, and guide us. Does it make sense that Jesus, knowing human nature, would have not left us some sure guide? This is not evidentiary, but seems rather common sense in my eyes.

It’s common sense in our eyes too, that’s why we teach it as well. My issue is not with the necessity of the church or teachers or anything of the sort. It is with the claims of infallible authority that the CC makes which I don’t think fit the evidence at hand.

ken

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

don’t worry, it probably won’t last for long
All I meant was that the claims of Rome cannot be determined outside the totality of her doctrines, including infallibility. In other words, I don’t think evaluating the claims of Rome is a linear process, with some things evaluated first, then other things when the first are accepted. It is a worldview and as such the truth or falsity of one claim is often tied up with numerous others. Essentially, I’m not sure individual ideas can be isolated for consideration because every idea is so connected to every other idea. To consider the history of the church is to interact with her claims to infallibility on some level.

I’m not sure these things can be separated. We are dealing with specific doctrines and claims that extend back into history. The incarnation of the church in the real world produces real historical events which form the basis of our knowledge about the church. The worldview presented by the CC needs to be evaluated as a whole, not in pieces, IMO…

I think this is just a difference of approach. As a convert, this is exactly how I came to the Church. In a nutshell, I first came to the conclusion that I believed in an objective truth. Once answered, I began looking into the claims of those who purported to hold such. I evaluated those claims as objectively as I was able (including mormonism, islam, eastern philosphies, Judaism, Protestantism, etc.) and after years of study concluded that the Catholic claim by far was the strongest and most coherent. This was actually quite a surprise to me as I was vehemently anit-Catholic at the outset. This is my subjective experience however and obviously may not apply to your own journey. I can only offer what I have though.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

SteveG:

I think this is just a difference of approach. As a convert, this is exactly how I came to the Church. In a nutshell, I first came to the conclusion that I believed in an objective truth. Once answered, I began looking into the claims of those who purported to hold such. I evaluated those claims as objectively as I was able (including mormonism, islam, eastern philosphies, Judaism, Protestantism, etc.) and after years of study concluded that the Catholic claim by far was the strongest and most coherent. This was actually quite a surprise to me as I was vehemently anit-Catholic at the outset. This is my subjective experience however and obviously may not apply to your own journey. I can only offer what I have though.

You’re probably right, this may very well be just a difference in approach. For me, it was never an issue of being anti-catholic or anything like that. It was more of just becoming Christian then being forced to look at our history and trying to figure out why things are the way they are. I always considered strong relativism to be idiotic anyways so it was never really an option (even as an agnostic it didn’t seem to have much going for it…). The real issue for me was more one of what the extent and and value of our knowledge is.

ken

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

This all depends on a few things:

1. I don’t think anyone is arguing that this is the practical effect. From my confessional position, we clearly advocate the neccessity of teachers to draw meaning from scripture. Even for those from a much more free tradition, the necessity of teachers is rarely spoken against. My position is simply that the scriptures contain all that one need know to achieve salvation using the normal factulties of man. This position is I think identical to the general theory of perspicuity you propose for magesterial teachings. Many things are implied that your average person may not get, but God has given us teachers to help us find those things.

This is where the idea of apostolic succession comes in along with the Pope as the vicar on earth. The safeguard is that if the teachers are within the lineage of the apostles AND subject to the the bishop of Rome (successor of Peter) then we can have some assurity that they are within the bounds of orthodoxy. Of course, at times, this can be as muddled as any other approach (as you already mentioned). The KEY difference in Catholicism is that there is a court of last resort to the Pope. Of course disputes will arise, but ultimately we have an arbiter who can rule and bind that ruling on the faithful. Whether the faithful accept the teachings or not is another story. What is Protestantisms court of last resort? The bible? But that’s just a book and can’t speak. If you and your pastor disagree on a doctrine, to whom do you take your dispute for resolution?

Now I am not suggesting that this can’t be very messy at times and that it’s without it’s own particular troubles, but there is an avenue for final resolution. In fact, many of the things you likely see debated amongst Catholics here are relatively modern (think in terms of Centuries) issues which haven’t played themselve out yet. Catholics don’t seriously debate anymore if the immaculate conception IS a teaching of the church any longer. Both traditionalist and mainstream accept this as it has already been vetted and assimilated. Modern contraversies will likely go this way as well (to be replaced by other issues). The ugly details of this can sometimes be just that, but over the long haul, the teachings are not really in doubt by any Catholic not trapped in the hyper individualistic paradigm of western society.

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

I always considered strong relativism to be idiotic anyways so it was never really an option (even as an agnostic it didn’t seem to have much going for it…).

Intellectually, you are 100% right, but I sure was able to make it fit my hedonistic lifestyle when I was an agnostic.

Totally as an aside. Are you familiar with Scott Hahn? I am sure you’ve seen his name around these forums, but have you ever read any of his works? I’d like to pass you some discussions (these are actually transcribed talks) of his on the issue of the Papacy and infallability. They are really fascinating and I think you’d enjoy them. He can addres these issues far better than anyone here likely can. Check out this site…
http://www.mindspring.com/~darcyj/files/drhahn.html
…Almost all the talks are fantastic reading (though a little choppy at times as transcriptions are apt to be). In particulare the Pope, Holy Father. one might be of most interest to you.

Note:
The transcribed talks are about midway down the page. I really hope you’ll check these out as I think they are right up your alley.

 

[bamark]

Shibboleth:

Many people much wiser and more intelligent that you and I have attempted to prove the existence of God. As far as I know no one has successfully been able to do so without logically failing on one level or another. The reason for this is that it always comes down to God is because he is or God is because he says he is.

Shibboleth, belief in GOD requires faith. Without faith, GOD does not exist. IF GOD does not exist, then most of the Old Testament if not the entire Bible is in error.

He did this by saying that we cannot have knowledge of something without prior experience of that something (the beginnings of British Empiricism.) Since we have knowledge of the infinite we must have witnessed the infinite. Since the only truly infinite thing is God we must have been witness to God - therefore he exists.

Do we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that GOD exists?

It still comes down to this.

God exists because the Magisterium states that he exists.
This is true because the Magisterium is infallible in its proclamations.
It is infallible because Jesus gave them this power.
Jesus could give them this power because he is God.
We know Jesus is God because the Magisterium stated that he is God.

If you think that you can prove the existence of God without ultimately being tautological I would love to hear it. I have seen two things when people try to do this – it becomes an endless list of conjunctives and disjunctives or they make a fatal error in the equation.

Does it need to be proven that beyond doubt that the Lord passed His teachings - both written and verbal - to the Apostles, who then passed that on to the Church. In the end, you have to accept the fact that He said/did so. I think we should have an informed Faith, but a Faith nevertheless.

I’m not sure what all of this has to do with the original thread topic.

Mark

This statement in and of itself is circular if you includee that which is implied.

 

[Shibboleth]

Shibboleth, belief in GOD requires faith. Without faith, GOD does not exist. IF GOD does not exist, then most of the Old Testament if not the entire Bible is in error.

Do we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that GOD exists?

Does it need to be proven that beyond doubt that the Lord passed His teachings - both written and verbal - to the Apostles, who then passed that on to the Church. In the end, you have to accept the fact that He said/did so. I think we should have an informed Faith, but a Faith nevertheless.

I’m not sure what all of this has to do with the original thread topic.

Mark

First God does exist without faith… he needs nothing to exist outside of himself. Before man he existed.

This is my point exactly. If you look back I am just responding to someone that stated that Sola Scriptura was tautological – I refuted this by showing that the Catholic Faith does not escape this.

I also agree that one need not prove it but have faith alone.

As per my quote to his earlier proof…

Q>How do you know God exists…
A>Faith
Q>What about the Bible
A>I have faith in that also
Q>What about a logical proof
A>I do not need to prove it, that is why it is faith

C. S. Lewis (arguably the leading apologist of the twentieth century) wrote that apologetics was very draining, and that no doctrine of the Christian faith ever looked so doubtful as whichever one he had just finished defending–because, he said, for that moment its truth seemed to rely entirely on his ability to prove it. I find his writings on the subject very encouraging to read, but I don’t envy his position.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

This is where the idea of apostolic succession comes in along with the Pope as the vicar on earth. The safeguard is that if the teachers are within the lineage of the apostles AND subject to the the bishop of Rome (successor of Peter) then we can have some assurity that they are withing the bounds of orthodoxy.

But of course you know that this isn’t always the case. As others here have mentioned, there are plenty of bishops teaching error who have not been dealt with or rebuked directly. From the practical position of a layman this can cause tremendous problems. For example, the diocese of the in-laws is, I suspect, very liberal. This liberalism has filtered down to the local level when I have yet to see a priest who would most here would consider orthodox. I know from discussions with my in-laws that this heretical teaching has an effect on them (they, for instance, gave me a tract on why all religions are equally valid ways to God).

At the level of practical perspicuity, this becomes a huge problem. The laymen must interpret the teachings of the church through both their local priest and the written documents of the church. They can choose to reconcile the two opposing teachings, hold the contradictory positions or reject one or more opposing positions as false. Nonetheless, the perspicuity of church teaching becaomes much more complex with this.

All this being said, you have to remember that my position is that despite all of these difficulties, language is still useful and people can in general understand the teachings of both the magesterium and scripture in their main emphases, if not every detail. I just bring up these issues to illustrate the universality of the problem.

The KEY difference in Catholicism is that there is a court of last resort to the Pope. Of course disputes will arise, but ultimately we have an arbiter who can rule and bind that ruling on the faithful.

Let me say up-front that I have no problem agreeing that having a central figure makes for an easier epistemic position. However, my argument is not over this general contention, it is over whether this is what God intended and desires and whether this is what the church has practiced over the ages. The Jews found it easier to have a king over them though God told them this was not His ultimate desire for them and that they would suffer for it.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

What is Protestantisms court of last resort? The bible? But that’s just a book and can’t speak. If you and your pastor disagree on a doctrine, to whom do you take your dispute for resolution?

Yes, it is the scripture. But a few thoughts here:

1. Sure, it is just a book in some sense, but it is also the divine words of God which are given life through the Spirit.
2. Part of our disagreement here is over teleology. I would argue that belief is meant to get one to salvation. The ultimate aim of God is to call out a people for Himself and he uses the church and scripture to accomplish this. A perfect understanding is not necessary, but a sufficient one. As such, the last court is that of God and His judgment. He calls men to treat His Word with respect and to understand it and to abide by it. In this world we have certain, though fallible guides to understanding the scripture God has given us. In your view, it seems much more like the goal is unity and epistemic certainty which leads to a proper dispensation of God’s graces through the church to build God’s kigdom through salvation. Though this may not seem a big issue, how we view the ultimate aim of God will largely determine the relative import we place on our arguments. While your arguments for the the greater certainty of the papacy are valid, nonetheless they aren’t particularly persausive to me because I don’t view such certainty as a necessity for the operation of God’s ultimate salvific will.
3. While the theoretical argument for the greater value of a papal decree does carry quite a bit of force, I nonetheless find it less than compelling on the evidential basis that I am not convinced the church actually is right. As I’ve been arguing this whole time, language (and history) carry meaning that is public and can be known to people to varying degrees. As such, the claims of the CC, even when claimed infallible, are subject to rational critique via the scriptures, logic and history. When these are brought to bear, I would argue that the CC’s claims to be that final, infallible court of appeal are found wanting.
4. So, while the court of last appeal certainly has something for it, it must earn this honor of being respected as such. When I became Christian the scriptures spoke to my heart as no man ever had. Perhaps you get the same from reading Lumen Gentium, but I don’t. While this is a subjective argument, it nonetheless forms some of what we acknowledge as reasons for belief. Jesus claims his sheep will hear His word and I can’t see this as anything but an affirmation of at least this one subjective element of the faith. The sheep must be convinced he hears the words of the Master before he will follow them. In Rome’s case, I do not hear those words consistently.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Intellectually, you are 100% right, but I sure was able to make it fit my hedonistic lifestyle when I was an agnostic.

I was always a good boy. Chalk it up to a strong sense of self-preservation.

They are really fascinating and I think you’d enjoy them. He can addres these issues far better than anyone here likely can. Check out this site…

ok, I’ll take a look at them…

ken

 

[RNRobert]

II Paradox II:

I would argue it represents quite a bit of Christianity and human nature across the board.

Well, I would assume that you “know” the faith is true otherwise you wouldn’t believe it. The position that the Pope and magesterium are infallible is a position that many Christians have disputed without thinking it “decapitates Christ”. Your position might demand that conclusion but I don’t hold to your assumptions.

To God’s Word? Lest you forget, Sola Scriptura does claim that the revelation of God is the highest authority. My position is that the church is authoritative, not infallible (Though to be honest, I’m not sure about infallibility of the body as a whole, along Eastern Orthodox lines of thought).

No, you only see it as such because you assume that there is no certain knowledge without infallibility, the very point I was making in the words you quoted from me.

well, that may be a bit of a stretch. Certainly there was some of that, but the roots of skepticism go a lot further back than that. How about the ascendency of Aristotle’s empiricism over Platonism in the medieval church? That set the stage for the loss of faith in universals that govern our interpretation of particulars and putting it the other way around, thus leading to the dominance of natural science and the triumph of induction (reasoning from particular facts to universal truths) over deduction (reasoning from absolute universals to particular facts).

He may be right in some aspects, I don’t deny that some people have radically abused the concept. However, misuse of a truth does not mean that the truth does not still apply.

ken

 

[bamark]

Shibboleth:

First God does exist without faith… he needs nothing to exist outside of himself. Before man he existed.

He exists only if you believe he exists. I won’t argue that He didn’t exist, because I believe. Trying to prove/disprove He exists philosophically or psychologically is pointless, because that person does not believe in his heart.

I also agree that one need not prove it but have faith alone.

.
in addition to

C. S. Lewis (arguably the leading apologist of the twentieth century) wrote that apologetics was very draining, and that no doctrine of the Christian faith ever looked so doubtful as whichever one he had just finished defending–because, he said, for that moment its truth seemed to rely entirely on his ability to prove it. I find his writings on the subject very encouraging to read, but I don’t envy his position.

Want to see proof of that, look no further than the Baptist Board.

Mark

 

[Shibboleth]

bamark:

He exists only if you believe he exists. I won’t argue that He didn’t exist, because I believe.

What is this some bizzare anti-positivistim Never Ending Story theory.

I would guess that many people in Sodom did not believe that God existed. It did not change that he destroyed them.

 

[RNRobert]

II Paradox II:

To God’s Word? Lest you forget, Sola Scriptura does claim that the revelation of God is the highest authority. My position is that the church is authoritative, not infallible (Though to be honest, I’m not sure about infallibility of the body as a whole, along Eastern Orthodox lines of thought).

Yes, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, and that we should study it. However. Scripture itself tells us that it contains “things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16, NAB). While I’m not unstable (at least in my opinion anyway ) and while I consider myself fairly smart and more well-read than the average Christian, I have no training at all in theology or the original Biblical languages. I doubt the Ethiopian eunuch was a mental midget, but when asked about understanding a passage of Scripture, said, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” (Acts 8:31, NAB). So, to whom should one go for instruction? Luther? Calvin? Mary Baker Eddy? Ellen White? Charles Taze Russell? Or perhaps one should consult the likes of Jim Jones or David Koresh? The bottom line is this:

Whose interpretation can you trust???

In an earlier post you said you rejected the claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of the trinitarian tradition in the early centuries of the church. This is all well and good, but many Bible-believers (particularly Protestants) haven’t a clue to church history or patristic writings, so when the JWs (or the Mormons, or the Seventh-day Adventists, or some other fringe group) knock on their door and claim to have “a true understanding of Scripture,” many people can be taken. The tragedies of Jonestown, Waco and of the Heaven’s Gate group all demonstrate the reality that people can be led to their destruction (at least physical, if not spiritual as well) by those who distort God’s Word.

(to be continued…
]

 

[RNRobert]

Continued…
Speaking of tradition, you said in another post that you accept the first few centuries of Christian tradition. This seems analagous to the Eastern Orthodox claim that they are the “church of the seven councils,” that is, they accept as valid the pronouncements of the first seven ecumenical Councils (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II). My question is, why must Christian theology be limited to only the first few centuries of Christian History? Karl Adam makes a valid point in his book, The Spiirit of Catholicism:

It is the spirit of revelation living in the Church, the vitality and consistency of Catholic thought, that “active tradition,” as the schoolmen call it, which prevents any injury to the Catholic whole and ever restores its massive unity and inward harmony. It is the same living spirit of revelation, manifested in the teaching authority , which gives the Church its flexibility and power of expansion, and enables it to adapt itself to every age, to every civilization, and to every mental outlook. It is indeed the propelling and progressive principle of Catholicism. All other Christian bodies, insofar as they have maintained a positive belief, have attached themselves to a fixed and rigid principle. In Lutheranism and Calvinism it is the letter of the Bible; In the schismatic churches of the East it is the Bible and “passive” tradition, that is to say, the tradition of the ancient Fathers and most ancient councils. Therefore these churches are in danger of treating revelation as so much dead capital, as a store of gold which must be passed on to future generations in a merely external fashion, and of overlooking the energies that lie in the revelation and work for the further development of its germinal content. To this danger of petrefaction and ossification the Orthodox Church has succumbed. Or there is the opposite danger, that in an effort to accomodate religion to modern needs and requirements, it’s inner connection with revelation is sacrificed, and an entirely novel Christianity, the religion of German idealism, or what you will, is summoned into life. This is the danger that menaces Protestantism. But Catholicism is safe from both possibilities.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Yes, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, and that we should study it. However. Scripture itself tells us that it contains “things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16, NAB). While I’m not unstable (at least in my opinion anyway )

This is why the church exists and why we have teachers.

Whose interpretation can you trust???

Whom you trust is a function of whom you place your faith in and whether their pronouncements serve to support this faith or reduce it. I don’t trust the magesterium of Rome as an interpreter because their interpretations are not particularly convincing in certain areas (not to say this is always the case, some of their interpretations I believe to be entirely correct). As I said to others, language carries meaning that can be known to some degree. As such, any interpretation can be criticized and examined to see whther it is reasonable or not. If someone claims to be an authoritative interpreter while making many interpretations that don’t sem to jive with the text or history I tend to be suspicious.

In an earlier post you said you rejected the claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses because of the trinitarian tradition in the early centuries of the church. This is all well and good, but many Bible-believers (particularly Protestants) haven’t a clue to church history or patristic writings, so when the JWs (or the Mormons, or the Seventh-day Adventists, or some other fringe group) knock on their door and claim to have “a true understanding of Scripture,” many people can be taken.

Yes, but I didn’t say this was the only way to know the truth. The scriptures are trinitarian and many non-geniuses have figured this out. God will protect his elect from damning error non matter what their IQ. My wife is a very simple person yet she is not at all convinced by Mormons and JW’s.

ken

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Speaking of tradition, you said in another post that you accept the first few centuries of Christian tradition. This seems analagous to the Eastern Orthodox claim that they are the “church of the seven councils,” that is, they accept as valid the pronouncements of the first seven ecumenical Councils (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople II, Constantinople III, and Nicaea II).

That isn’t quite accurate. I would say that the core of the faith is contained in the early creeds and councils of the church. Not every inference or fact, but the core of the historical teachings of the faith. Since I don’t believe the church is infallible, I don’t see these as infallible pronouncements of the faith, but a record of the fidelity of the church to it’s apostolic and scriptural foundation.

My question is, why must Christian theology be limited to only the first few centuries of Christian History? Karl Adam makes a valid point in his book, The Spiirit of Catholicism

It doesn’t need to be, if it was I’d probably be Orthodox. I don’t have any problem with development of doctrine in theory, just the claims of validity for certain developments. I accept lots of things the early church didn’t really deal with at all…

ken

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

At the level of practical perspicuity, this becomes a huge problem. The laymen must interpret the teachings of the church through both their local priest and the written documents of the church. They can choose to reconcile the two opposing teachings, hold the contradictory positions or reject one or more opposing positions as false. Nonetheless, the perspicuity of church teaching becaomes much more complex with this.

The question is not what each individual accepts the teachings or not. Everyone retains free will under any system we are discussing. The question is whether the Church teaches the truth, not whether each person accepts it or not. I think you are looking at this upside down. Should we disbeleive Christ because one of his hand-picked apostles didn’t ‘get it’ and betrayed them? If you standard of perspecuity and eveyone accepting is the test, then both our systems fail and Christianity is doomed from the start because of Judas.

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

1. Sure, it is just a book in some sense, but it is also the divine words of God which are given life through the Spirit.

But in evaluating these competing claims, you can’t consider this as evidence. This is similar to claims of infallability. Looking at it objectively it’s only words on paper. I agree with you though that it is as you state above, yet…it still can not speak. It can not answer questions in a dynamic sense. It can only answer to the extent that the hands and mind that yield it do it justice. Ask the bible what we should believe regarding cloning. You will see that it can not answer you. It was not meant to answer you in an authoritative way.
II Paradox II:

1. Part of our disagreement here is over teleology. I would argue that belief is meant to get one to salvation. The ultimate aim of God is to call out a people for Himself and he uses the church and scripture to accomplish this. A perfect understanding is not necessary, but a sufficient one. As such, the last court is that of God and His judgment. He calls men to treat His Word with respect and to understand it and to abide by it.

Yes, and is all his WORD in scripture? Christ is is his word, and the pages of no book can fully contain the meaning of Christ. To limit his word to the bible alone i think overly confines God and his majesty.

What is a sufficient understanding? We are not talking about trivial difference between interpretations here. The Eucharist, baptism (how it’s performed, it’s meaning), etc. Different systems think these items are critical to salvation to one extent or another. It is nice sounding to say a sufficient understanding is enough. But how is these even possible if sufficient is defined differently based upon differing interpretations. It may take a Catholic his whole life to come to know sufficiently what he needs to know for salvation, but at least there is a target for him to aim at and discover. In the Protestant world, their is not even an agreement at the top, nay, there is not even a ‘top’, at which the Christian can aim to know.
II Paradox II:

In this world we have certain, though fallible guides to understanding the scripture God has given us. In your view, it seems much more like the goal is unity and epistemic certainty which leads to a proper dispensation of God’s graces through the church to build God’s kigdom through salvation. Though this may not seem a big issue, how we view the ultimate aim of God will largely determine the relative import we place on our arguments. While your arguments for the the greater certainty of the papacy are valid, nonetheless they aren’t particularly persausive to me because I don’t view such certainty as a necessity for the operation of God’s ultimate salvific will.

The confusion on moral issues among Christians helps to twhart His salvific will. What we do effects who we are and how we are percieved by the world. The certainty of truth is not a side issue. Birth Control, abortion, euthenasia, etc., etc. are not incidentals. As Catholics following in the footsteps of our Jewish roots, we understand that a person is not a shell of flesh in which is housed a soul. A person is an embodied soul. Integrated to such an extent that there ceases to be a distinction between body and soul. What we do with our bodies effects to a great extent our spirituality. If Protestantism is wrong for instance on Birth Control, then most Christians are hindering there own efforts at growing closer to God and being transformed by his love.
II Paradox II:

1. While the theoretical argument for the greater value of a papal decree does carry quite a bit of force, I nonetheless find it less than compelling on the evidential basis that I am not convinced the church actually is right.

I am unclear on this. Right in what regard?

 

[SteveG]

II Paradox II:

As I’ve been arguing this whole time, language (and history) carry meaning that is public and can be known to people to varying degrees. As such, the claims of the CC, even when claimed infallible, are subject to rational critique via the scriptures, logic and history.

And scripture is subject to rational critique via the church, logic and history. I’ll say again, whether the Church’s claims are correct or not, they are most definetely far better, logical, and coherent than the alternative (Sola Scriptura).
II Paradox II:

When these are brought to bear, I would argue that the CC’s claims to be that final, infallible court of appeal are found wanting.

Again, I’d ask in what regards? Maybe the arguments have not been made well. Do you doubt Peter is the Rock in MT 16? Do you doubt his role as Catholics understand it? Do you doubt apostolic succession? Where is it that these arguments are found wanting? You may just need to see them made more clearly. I’ll be so bold as to say that I have a suspicion that you WANT such to be proven to you. I think you are wise enough to see the fatal flaws in the Protestant system, but fear to let go of it lest you find there is nothing better to turn to. Just my perceptions, so please forgive if I am way off base. I don’t intend to offend.
II Paradox II:

1. So, while the court of last appeal certainly has something for it, it must earn this honor of being respected as such.

Oh my, I hope not. If this is about earning that honor, then we are all certainly doomed. If earning the honor is the criteria then you’d better toss your scriptures, as none of the authors ‘earned’ the right to write them in an inspired and inerrant way. Either the Holy Spirit protected them DESPITE their not deserving it, or not. Likewise, either the Holy Spirit is protecting the church despite the Judases, doubting Thomases, et al. that live within her or not. There is nothing in Christianity from top to bottom that we have earned. ALL is given by the awesome grace of God.
II Paradox II:

When I became Christian the scriptures spoke to my heart as no man ever had. Perhaps you get the same from reading Lumen Gentium, but I don’t. While this is a subjective argument, it nonetheless forms some of what we

Are you sure it’s wise to use this line of argument? It’s the same one the Mormons use when they hand folks the book of Mormon and ask them to see if they feel a burning in the bosom. The muslims claim the same for the Koran. These subjective emotional experiences don’t seem to be the best way make such judgements.

Frankly, I don’t really care so much anymore how I feel about these things. I’d rather know the truth and follow it as best I can and the grace of God allows me to. Life is not to me a journey of the intellect or emotion. It is a journey of growing in holiness and being sanctified by the Lord. Fine feelings are a wonderful consolation on the spiritual journey, but they don’t mean much beyond that. This is one of the huge problems I had with Protestantism. The empahasis on my individual subjective emotional experience. This is supposed to be about a community worshipping God, instead it often came across as individuals worshipping the experience itself.
II Paradox II:

acknowledge as reasons for belief. Jesus claims his sheep will hear His word and I can’t see this as anything but an affirmation of at least this one subjective element of the faith. The sheep must be convinced he hears the words of the Master before he will follow them. In Rome’s case, I do not hear those words consistently.

What words are you not hearing? I am unclear on this as well.