It is necessary to be careful in dealing with what might on the surface appear to be contradictions between the teachings of two popes, a pope and a council, or two councils. The same is true of an apparent contradiction between Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church. These apparent contradictions must be resolved according to the “analogy of faith”. In other words, since we know that both (or several) teachings are inspired by the same Holy Spirit, it is unacceptable to reject one in favor of another. Rather, the key is to find out how they fit together.

In one case that you mention from your 12/1/07 post (the case of salvation outside the Catholic Church), while some have charged that Vatican II changed the teaching, this is really not the case. While this is a complex topic, here are some points to consider:

1. Vatican II did teach that all Christian religions participate in some of the “bona” (goods) of which the Catholic Church is the full and complete repository—such as Scripture, certain forms of prayer, baptism, and other goods of Christian faith and life which are retained more or less undistorted in many congregations. However, this is not the same thing as saying that these other Christian denominations constitute the true Church of Christ, or that they are in any way equal to the Church of Christ. No, Vatican II taught that the Church of Christ in fact subsists in the Catholic Church. These other churches simply possess, by historical accident so to speak, some of the goods originally entrusted by Christ to His Church. Therefore, this observation of Vatican II—so important to a just assessment of the conditions of our separated brethren—does not contradict any earlier teaching.

2. Vatican II also taught (as had several Popes before it) that it is possible for non-Catholics (and, indeed, non-Christians) who sincerely strive to know and follow the good to be saved. This has appeared to many to contradict prior teachings to the effect that there is no salvation outside the Church. On closer examination, however, one finds that the earlier teachings don’t in fact claim that one has to be a juridical member of the Church to fulfill the requirement of not being “outside” her. Rather, one can be joined to the Church in various mysterious ways. A common example would be someone who dies for Christ without having first been received into the Church (called baptism by blood).

3. In fact, the Church has always held (both before, during and since Vatican II) that it is possible for someone to be joined to the Church in various ways without actually being a juridical member. One of the ways that this is possible is “desiderio ac voto” (by an intense wish or desire). This is considered to be the condition of a person who tries sincerely to discover God and the good insofar as he is able to know it, and to live by what he discovers. Such a person would surely join the Church if he or she could but see clearly that this is what God wishes, presuming the opportunity to do so.

4. There are many people who are not members of the Church through no fault of their own. They have never encountered the Church; they have been conditioned so much against her that they lack the psychological capacity to justly evaluate her claims; they are invincibly ignorant; and so on. In a largely secular and anti-Catholic world, with the Church herself in such turmoil, this is as painfully obvious to all now as it was already to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, and to many popes before that time.

But only those who knowingly and willfully reject the Church are completely cut off from Her. Only these are in an absolute sense “outside the Church”, apart from which there is no salvation. Only God Himself can judge for certain which souls fall into this category of having known and deliberately rejected His Church.

In other words, on close examination, the two sides of this teaching do not contradict each other. Meanwhile, the fullness of the goods offered for our salvation reside only in the Catholic Church, and salvation is far easier by availing oneself of these goods than by any other path. Given this state of affairs, it is far more important for Catholics to focus less on who may be completely cut off from the Church and focus more on the fact that, since they themselves have been given so much, much will be expected of them.

Like I said before, I really need to have your sources on the councils and Papal decrees that you say are contradicting. For everyone that you mention (Ecuminical only that is) I see only a constant truth being taught. In otherwords, my studies show a different picture than your version.

Furthermore, if this decision is so important to you, and I sincerely believe that it is, then why do you side step the doctrine of scripture alone? (and faith alone for that matter) Of course every Catholic Apologetic is going to attack it. It flies in the face of reason, it is no where stated in scripture, nor is it part of any of the early church’s traditions. If you are so adamant about the errors of Infallability, how do you even begin to defend these protestant doctrines? At the very least, Infallability is supported by scripture.

First, I would like to make a correction to the last statement in the 7th paragraph that I made in my most recent post. I meant to say “In this course which the Church has taken she herself proves that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is fallible.”

Next, I want you to understand that it was very disheartening for me to come to the conclusion regarding the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in the Roman Catholic Church. I dove in hook, line and sinker in my spiritual quest of the truth. It was as though I was reborn all over again as I became deeply drawn to the Roman Catholic Church. It is difficult to express in mere words the intensity to which I was being drawn. I was consummed during most of my waking hours with the desire to learn all I could about the Church that claimed to possess the fullness of the truth. I immersed myself in Catholic doctrine, teaching, and practices. Friends and family were beginning to think of me as being quite odd. I assure you, I fully intended to become a Roman Catholic by Easter 2008, no matter what the cost.

With that said, I realize that in your most recent reply to me, you assume that I have no knowledge of the points you have made. You think to instruct me of things which you consider me to be ignorant. What you need to know is that I am already quite familiar with the arguments you have used in defense of the R.C. Church. I’ve read all the verses in defense of all the doctrines. Please understand, I say this with all sincerity, but nothing you have said in your most recent post is new to me. I once used those same verses and the same line of thinking to defend the Catholic faith. So none of what you have said has even scratched the surface regarding my main contention with the Catholic faith. In other words, you have not dealt with the reasons I have put forth as to why I cannot, in good conscience, become a Roman Catholic.

However, I honestly believe that you are very sincere and mean to seek my good in what you have stated. But you are missing my point entirely. Let me try to help you understand.

What first led me to my study of the R.C. faith was my disillusionment with the church I was attending with my husband. In my studies of the Catholic faith, I encountered apologist after apologist who tore down sola scriptura. Their arguments at the time made perfect sense to me. I was thrilled with the idea that there could be a church that claimed continuity, oneness, immutability with regard to doctrine, stability, unity, confidence in proclaiming the Christian faith, a Tradition that remained unchanged in a changing world. What could be better than having the security of a church that remained faithful, steadfast, and unwavering regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ?

What began my deeper quest into the truth was a statement that convinced me of the serious committment I would be making if I became a Roman Catholic. I was told that I would have to publicly “confess to believe all that the Church teaches and submit to all her doctrines and dogmas.” At that point, I realized the gravity of the situation. Becoming a Roman Catholic meant vowing to uphold and defend all that the Church claims to be. I took on the challenge with gusto.

It dawned on me that the current R.C. apologists encouraged the reading of the Early Church Fathers (usually up to the 6th Century) and the writings of the recent popes such as JPII and Benedict XVI. However, they were quite silent on the teachings/proclamations of the popes from the 7th century through the early 20 Century. I seldom heard any quotes from Vatican I, or the Council of Trent, or the Council of Florence.

I remembered that I had packed away the books from a course on the Middle Ages, which I had taken in college. My professor was a Roman Catholic who had been educated in Catholic institutions from grade school through the university level. Before taking exams, he would pray the Lord’s Prayer in Latin. Honestly, at that time, I wasn’t all that interested in learning about popes, councils, Monasticism, the Crusades and all that encompasses that period in history. I just wanted to get through the course and get my degree.

As I broke open those texts on the Middle Ages, I read with a renewed purpose in mind. I wanted to learn about all of the Roman Catholic Church’s history, for this would be the Church I was joining. However, as I read, the scales began to fall from my eyes. How could the Church which I had thought to be so beautiful and glorious, be revealed to be something quite different? I became saddened and broken hearted. I realized that I had been looking at the R.C. Church from only one perspective – that she had to be the Church that possessed the fullness of the truth. History led me to the discovery that the Roman Catholic Church was not all that she claimed to be. There were gaping holes in her claims, of which Papal Infallibility was the most perspicuous.

TBT, you said that I “throw the idea of Infallibility around like it is common practice among Roman Catholics.” You need to read my post more clearly. I referred to Papal Decrees which were pronounced infallibly by popes. You said “You seem to think that everything a pope says is considered infallible to Roman Catholics.” Nothing in what I have said is further from the truth. In my post to you on November 25th, I demonstrate an understanding of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. Never once have I hinted at or insinuated that everything a pope says must be infallible. I realize that a pope can write a book, and Roman Catholics are not oblidged to submit to that as infallible pronouncements on the faith. You should not assume something for which I have not given any proof in what I have written thus far.

Now I present a challenge for you. You have not, as of yet, addressed the issues I have mentioned to you regarding the contradictions between pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II popes and councils. The proclamations made at the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Trent, the Council of Florence, and a myriad of other councils, were stated infallibly. The Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages was prone to making infallible pronouncements more regularly than the current R.C. Church. She did this to retain the power she possessed in the Holy Roman Empire. There was no institution in the Western world during the Middle to Latter Middle Ages that had more power than the Roman Catholic Church.

The pronouncements made at the Fourth Lateran Council, such as the example I gave of Unam Santum, and those made at the Council of Trent and Vatican I, and the Council of Florence by Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino in 1441), all fulfill the requirements of excathedra statements. In these documents: 1) The pope was speaking in his capacity as chief leader and shepherd of the Church; 2) The pope was clearly defining a doctrine as being a truth of the faith to be accepted by the whole Church (in these cases, the truth of the doctrine of salvation as the Church taught it, namely, that there is no salvation outside of the R.C. Church, and all heretics and unbelievers outside the Church are damned); and 3) The pope was defining matters of faith and morals. The proclamations in these councils (as well as a myriad of others) were purposefully and clearly spoken with infallibility in order to preserve the Roman Catholic faith and to condemn heretics, and all who were outside of the Church. These were not negotiable statements. The Roman Catholic was bound by the Church to submit to these councils as the indisputable truth spoken by the Vicar of Christ on earth.

I will, if you think it necessary, refer to more infallible pronouncements made at other councils by other popes. But furthermore, I would encourage you to investigate what these popes and councils proclaimed, especially during the Middle Ages up to the early 20th Century. You may just discover that the local parish where you worship in the Novus Ordo Mass is quite different from the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church.

Until next time,

Darlene

You throw the idea of Infallibility around like it is common practice among Roman Catholics. You seem to think that everything a Pope says is considered infallible to Roman Catholics. If that is really your understanding, then you have truly missed the mark.

Infallibility of the Pope does not mean that the pope cannot sin. Infallibility means that under certain rigorous conditions the teaching of the pope is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit. The conditions are these:

1. The pope must be speaking in his capacity as chief leader and shepherd of the Church.

2. He must be clearly defining a doctrine as being a truth of faith to be accepted by the whole Church.

3. The definition must be concerned with matters of faith or morals.

The number of statements by popes that fulfill these conditions is very small. One example occurred in 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary a doctrine of faith. Catholics recognize that the ordinary teachings of the pope (in sermons, speeches, encyclical letters and so on) do not fulfill these conditions and are therefore not infallible. Catholics do, nevertheless, give due respect to all the teachings of the pope, whether infallible statements or not.

Tell me Darlene, Do you believe anyone in Christian and Jewish History ever spoke or written infallibly? If you say no, I will gladly show you otherwise, but if you say yes, then how is this possible?

Getting to your more pressing question;

“Now, tell me why I should submit to the Magesterium and Papal authority again?”

I will give you 6 good reasons, backed by Scripture & Tradition.

1. BECAUSE THE RC IS AN APOSTOLIC CHURCH

Jn 15:16 – Jesus chose special men to be his Apostles
Jn 20:21 – Jesus gave the Apostles his own mission
Lk 22:29-30 – Jesus gave them a kingdom
Mt. 16:18 – Jesus built Church on Peter, the rock
Jn 10:16 – one shepherd to shepherd Christ’s sheep
Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17 – Peter appointed to be chief shepherd
Eph 4:11 – church leaders are hierarchical
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 – identifies roles of bishops, priests, deacons
Tit 1:5 – commission for bishops to ordain priests

2. BECAUSE THE RC IS AN AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH

Mt. 28:18-20 – Jesus delegates all power to Apostles
Jn 20:23 – power to forgive sin
1 Cor 11:23-24 – power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)
Lk 10:16 – power to speak with Christ’s voice
Mt 18:18 – power to legislate
Mt 18:17 – power to discipline
St. Irenaeus (c. 200 AD): “…the Church, having received this preaching and this faityh, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these thibgs just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth.” Against Heresies 1, 10, 2

Eusibius of Caesarea (4th c.): “But the brightness of the Catholic Church proceeded to increase in greatness, for it ever held to the same points in the same way, and radiated forth to allthe race of Greeks and barbarians the reverent, sincere, and free nature, and the sobriety and purity of the divine teaching as to conduct and thought.” Ecclesiastical History 4, 7, 13.

St. Augustine (392 AD): “The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints… When, then we see so much help on God’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the apostolic chair down through successions of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority.” The advantage of Believing 35.

3. BECAUSE THE RC IS THE INFALLABILE CHURCH

Jn 16:13 – guided by Holy Spirit into all truth
Jn 14:26 – Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything
Lk 10:16 – speak with Christ’s own voice
1 Tim 3:15 – church called “pillar and foundation of truth”
1 Jn 2:27 – anointing of Holy Spirit remains in you
Acts 15:28 – Apostles speak with voice of Holy Spirit
Mt 28:20 – I (Jesus) am with you always
St. Irenaeus (c. 200): “For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit, however, is Truth. “ Against Heresies 3, 24, 1.

4. BECAUSE THE RC IS A PERPETUAL CHURCH

Is 9:6-7 – of Christ’s government there will be no end
Dan 2:44 – God’s kingdom shall stand forever
Dan 7:14 – his kingdom shall not be destroyed
Lk 1:32, 33 – no end to Christ’s Kingdom
Mt 13:24-30 – let what & weeds grow together until harvest.
Mt. 16:18 – gates of hell will never prevail against Christ’s church.
Jn 14:16 – Holy Spirit will be with you always

5. BECAUSE OF THE PRIMACY OF PETER (THE 1ST POPE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH)

Mt. 16:18 – upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt. 16:19 – give you keys of the kingdom, power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 – Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 – given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 – angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 – risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 – headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 – led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 – received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 – performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 – excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 – received revelation to admit Gentiles into church
Acts 15:7 – led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 – pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 – after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” – Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles – Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45, 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together.

6. BECAUSE OF THE RC CHURCHES APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION DOWN TO THE CURRENT POPE

2 Chr 19:11 – high priest is over you in everything of Lord’s
Mal 2:7 – seek instruction from priest, he is God’s messenger
Eph 2:20 – church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets
1 Cor 12:28-29 – God designated in church; apostles, …
Acts 1:20 – let another take his office
Acts 1:25-26 – Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 – qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons
1 Tim 4:14 – gift conferred with laying on of hands
1 Tim 5:22 – do not lay hands too readily on anyone
Acts 14:23 – they appointed presbyters in each church
2 Tim 2:2 – what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers
Titus 1:5 – appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed.

Now since you said in an earlier post

“I am aware that the Apostles laid their hands on others and commissioned others to preach the gospel and be bishops, elders, etc. in the church.”

Then you must believe in Apostolic Succession. If you believe in Apostolic Succession, then you cannot deny that the Roman Catholic Church, through the Bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope) succeeds from the Apostles. And not just any Apostle, but the Chief Apostle(as shown in my scripture references), Peter. In fact, the Catholic Church is the only Church that can trace its origins back to Peter; the same Peter in which Jesus founded His Church. What other church can claim or even attempt to claim this. And if you say that the Church founded on Peter does not exists, then you call our Lord and Savior a liar (read item 4 above)

So this brings me to another one of your posts;

“I came to the conclusion, that the present day Roman Catholic Church is not the one, true, Apostolic Church founded on the rock of St. Peter.”

If Jesus says that HIS Church, founded on the rock of Peter, will prevail against the gates of Hell, that the Holy Spirit will be with it always, that he (Jesus) would be with His Church Always, and that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all Truths, then where is HIS Church if it is not the Roman Catholic Church? If you claim it to be one of the many Protestant Denominations, then prove it.

Please do not play the Spiritual Church, the Universal belief in Jesus Card, because Jesus also said that his church is a VISIBLE church.

I cannot believe that Jesus would go through the trouble of building up a Church, to suddenly have it disappear in the 16th century. No matter how many bad or contradicting Popes there were, God protects his Church.

I will leave you with one final quote. It is an interpretation on how one view’s the Catholic Church, written by John L. Murphy.

Mr. Murphy says:

There are two ways a man might view the Church of Christ. He might look at it from the “outside,” and see it only as an organization. He may think of it as a political body of some sort, or a social group, or even identify it with the priests and bishops and consider it the means of dominating other people. But in every instance his interest in the Church is limited to the human element alone. He sees nothing but a group of “men,” not unlike any other organization around him.

The man of faith, on the other hand, will look at the Church from “within.” He will see it as the Church of God, the Body of Christ. It is for him a God-directed organization, sustained by the activity of its divine Soul, the Holy Spirit Himself.

This second view gives the only adequate explanation of what the Church is. Beneath the outer appearances of humanity, beneath even the sinfulness and failure of its members, there is the sustaining power of God. God’s strength, not man’s, has preserved this Church for nearly two thousand years, linking it to the apostolic faith of the primitive community.

The history of the Catholic Church, then, is really a spiritual history: the account of how the Holy Spirit has sustained it through the centuries; of how, in His own manner, He has enabled it to withstand persecutions from without and the errors which threatened it from within. The problems the Church has faced in the past two thousand years would have ruined any purely human organization, yet the Church remains. There has been growth, development-nonessential change. But the faith, the sacraments have remained untouched. The power of the Holy Spirit has triumphed over the trials of time.

I would like to remark on some comments that you have made in your discourse with Frazier. It is not my intention to meddle in a quarrel not my own, for I heed Solomon’s wise advice. However, you have said some things which bring me back to my original post as to why I have not become a Roman Catholic. My comments are not meant to nit-pick or wrongly fault the R.C. faith. Rather, I hope you are able to comprehend my reasoning in regards to this decision.

You refer to the Muslim as “your brother” because you say “we are all brothers and sisters under God.” Now I don’t have to ask how you came to this conclusion, for post Vatican II popes have purported this line of thinking. However, if you were to inquire of Pope Urban II, this supreme pontiff and Vicar of Christ would beg to differ with you. Urban II is best known as launching the First Crusade, typically referred to as the Popular Crusade in 1095, to reconquer the Holy Land. In his famous speech at the council of Clermont, he rallied the Christian warriors to take up the cross against the “Infidels” promising spiritual rewards to all who would do so: “Undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the kingdom of Heaven,” Urban proclaimed. And just who did Urban think these Infidels were? None other than what you claim to be your Muslim brothers. See what I mean about post Vat. II popes being cut from a different cloth? So much for the continuity of the Roman Catholic Church.

TBT, you say, “For in my view, by interpreting the Word of God for yourself, you claim to speak for God through your personal interpretation, a very dangerous thing to do given our human nature.” I would like to ask you a few very pertinent questions. When you or any other Roman Catholic picks up a Bible to read the scriptures, where and how is this infallible teaching authority in operation? Do you have a handy guide that tells you what each and every verse means according to the infallible Catholic Magesterium? How many verses of scripture have all the Roman pontiffs “infallibly interpreted?” Honestly, it is a rhetorical question on my part. Rome has in fact, been silent on infallibly interpreting the majority of scripture. Roman Catholic theologians, professors, priests, and scholars, even disagree on what the Bible has to say about various matters of the Christian faith. Just go to any R.C. college and you will discover this for yourself. There are R.C. nuns who teach at various Roman Catholic colleges who believe that women should be priests and that the creation story is just a myth. There are Catholic theologians who teach against transubstantion, the divinity of Christ, and support abortion. So much for “that they may all be one.”

While on my faith journey toward Roman Catholicism, I wondered why there could be so many Catholics who oppose the teachings of the Church, yet are not excommunicated or relieved from their posts. I am speaking of bishops, priests, nuns, theologians, and even well-known lay persons, who have publicly made known where they stand. Rome and the Magesterium are silent while those from within erode the faith of many ignorant Catholics.

Again, I reiterate what I said in one of my former posts. Roman Catholic apologists must attack sola scriptura in order to defend their faith. Yet, what you claim to be far more reliable is sola ecclesia. But this “infallible ecclesia” or magesterium, has contradicted itself over the course of time. No example can be more clearly seen as evidence of this (in my opinion) than in studying the infallible claims of Vatican II. The post Vatican II Church, with her new ecuminism, seems to suffer from a type of schizophrenia.

So you TBT, are willing to put your trust in an infallible papacy that used scripture to defend the slaughter of thousands and thousands of people, from Muslims, to Jews, to Protestants, to anyone whom the Roman Pontiff declared to be a heretic. For it was the Supreme Pontiff Urban II, who claimed that the truth of the holy scriptures was leading him to launch the first Crusade against the Infidels, to the point of promising eternal rewards for those willing to kill in the name of Christ and the Church. Pope Urban was uncompromising in his quest to exterminate all those who interfered with this Crusade in saying, “Concerning this affair, I, with supplicant prayer-not I, but the Lord-exhort you heralds of Christ, to persuade all of whatever class, both knights and footmen, both rich and poor, in numerous edicts, to strive to help expel that wicked race from our Christian lands before it is too late.” The “wicked race” being the the Muslims. So much for the traditional Roman Catholic Church viewing the Muslim as his brother. And this is but one of many examples of the Roman Papacy wrongly “interpreting” scripture for the sake of the Roman Catholic Church’s self-aggrandizement. So why, I ask, should I trust the Magesterium to interpret scripture for me? Why, when history teaches me that the papacy has wrongly interpreted scripture for the Church’s selfish purposes? Why, when the “infallible” statements of former popes stand in direct opposition to the present day “infallible” papal statements of the post-concilliar church?

The present day R.C. Church seeks to distance herself from the past with its anathamas against heretics of all persuasions. She wishes to preach a more universal salvation where even ignorant pagans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, anyone not confessing the Christian religion, has the opportunity to be saved, without ever converting to Christianity. She preaches a brotherhood of man in which all are children of God, although they may not confess it or believe it. She thinks to change the rubrics of the Mass so that more Protestants will be convinced to convert to Roman Catholicism. Yet, it is in this reversal, this obvious obfuscation, that she shows herself not to be what she claims, namely, the one, true, holy, apostolic Church. In this course which the Church has taken, she herself proves that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is infallible.

I leave you with one of those clear, “infallible” proclamations, which the present day R.C. Church would prefer to re-interpret with lofty, philosophical language, or better yet, dicard from its memory entirely. “Therefore, we declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” The Decree Unam Sanctum (1302). No mincing of words there.

Now, tell me why I should submit to the Magesterium and Papal authority again?

Darlene

Once again you hear me wrong. Basic understanding of the faith, to use your words, that is “planted” without prior knowledge of it, allows it to grow (upon accepting it).

Reason brings faith to life, faith enriches reason, but ultimatly faith carries one through to the final destination.

It probably means little to you what I say because you already have your preconceived notions about anyone that disagrees with you.

What I said earlier I still stand by. Whether I agree or disagree with Augustine and Anslem is not important.

As you said “I view faith as a supernatural work that is planted within the person”. I will not argue this point. But here is where the real difference is between RC and Lutheranism in particular. I beleive that mankind works with/against the Will of God. Unlike what Luther teaches, Mankind does have Free Will, just read the Book of Sirach. (Never mind, you cannot read that Book of the Bible, because Luther decided to throw it out of his Bible. It did not agree with HIS understanding)

A Man can choose to nurture this “supernatural” faith or abandon it, but he only does so by what he understands at that point in his life. If he has no knowledge of the Christian Faith, as you say, this “planted supernatural work” how then is he able to exercise his faith to further understanding? How then is my Muslim Brother (because we are all brothers & sisters under God) able to come to a realization of the Truth in the Christian Faith? Someone has to tell him, to spread the Good news. Now you might argue that it was faith in the person bringing the good news, but to the person contemplating this news it is not, in his mind faith. He must reason and attempt to understand this basic and fundamental knowledge that was just brought before him. I am not saying that God is not the invisible force, what I am saying is that God is waiting for the person to cooperate with him and by doing so enriching this “planted” faith that he knew nothing about. It is at this point that faith seeks further understanding.

By our Human nature (with the faith we have come to know)we will try to understand everything. At some point we will fall short, and must “turn it over to God” as my Protestant friends and family say. And in turning it over to God, we must look to his church and the Authority that he has given it. This again is where RC and Protestants differ. For in my view, by interpreting the word of God for yourself, you claim to speak for God through your personal interpretation, a very dangerous thing to do given our human nature. This is why we have so many competing denominations today.

We can set here and throw scripture quotes back and forth all day long, but at the end of the day it proves nothing other than our personal understanding of scripture. And that understanding, if I may add, can be led astray simply by the Bible Version (i.e. translation) we are reading from.

Oh, I see. If I disagree with you it’s because I misunderstood you not because you were wrong or because you weren’t clear about what you meant. If you want me to understand you, you have to help me do that.

I want to challenge your conception of faith. You say that faith takes over where human understanding fails. That is, human understanding apart from faith can carry us so far and then we need to have faith. Faith just fills in the gaps of our ignorance. I don’t see this idea presented in Scripture at all.

Faith is the fundamental thing that we need to understand anything. The major aim of this blog is to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ as 2 Cor 10:5 teaches. Scripture doesn’t call us to bring only those thoughts that are beyond human understanding under the captivity of Christ but to bring ALL thoughts under the capitivity of Christ. I don’t see then how you can think that human reason on its own can can understand some things but faith is necessary for others.

Apart from reasoning according to the truth of the Christian worldview and the truth of faith a person would not know anything. Unbelievers who reject faith know all kinds of things, but they do not know this because of their human understanding but because they have taken what is true only on the truth of the Christian faith and stated it as though it was true on the self-sufficiency of human reason. If unbelievers thought and believed everything consisistently with their espoused worldview they would not arrive at a single truth. Chaos and Old Night are the only foundations of claims to knowledge without building them on the truth found in Christ.

I agree that it is beyond our reason to fully understand the Trinity, the eternality of God, and the virgin birth of Christ. My point though is that it is beyound our reason to fully understand anything. Faith is necessary to properly interpret anything not just select theological brainteasers.

“How is someone, for instance, with no knowledge of God going to have Faith in him? Wouldn’t that person have to have at least a basic understanding/knowledge of who/what to have faith in?”

Here I think is where we see a very striking difference between faith according to Roman Catholicism and faith according to Protestantism and more specifically Lutheranism.

According to you, a person has to reach a certain knowledge via their human understanding before they are prepared to exercise faith. I view faith as a supernatural work that is planted within a person. As Luther argued human reason is an obstacle of faith not an aid. By human reason we judge God not to exist and the cross as foolishness. This is Paul’s precise point in 1 Cor 1-2. The wisdom of this world considers the wisdom of God foolisness. Divine understanding or true reason is an aid to faith, but not human reason. If a person has a “basic understanding/knowledge of who/what to have faith in” then this is the supernatural work of God in the mind of this person.

What God has prepared is not something that no eye has seen nor ear has heard and thus we do come to understand through our senses or human reason.

The notion of a leap of faith is foolishness and Scripture rejects such a notion. If you have told people to trust in their human reason for so much why would they take such a leap later on. They will do what in fact most people do: continue to trust in the power of human reason and judge faith to be for irrational people. You can’t build up the power of human reason and then ask people to take a leap from it.

As I have pointed out already, Augustine and Anselm don’t agree with you. Do you disagree with Augustine and Anselm here? I’m very curious to know.

The reason of fallen human beings cannot cooperate with the knowledge that comes by faith because human reason always wants to assert itself as the final judge of all matters and faith will not let reason be the final judge in any matter. What I hear you saying is that reason is the final judge in some matters but not in a select number of other matters. Scripture clearly rejects this view.

You stated

“If faith seeks understanding then how can it be opposed to it?”

“If”, is the key part of your statement. How is someone, for instance, with no knowledge of God going to have Faith in him? Wouldn’t that person have to have at least a basic understanding/knowledge of who/what to have faith in?

And how would said person even know what faith is?

I believe the two work together, Basic Understanding leads to faith, while Faith (once obtained) seeks out a deeper Understanding. Where that understand falls short, as it always will, one must take the proverbial ‘leap of Faith’

Please don’t misunderstand me. I don’t mean it in the sense that we cannot try to understand, but rather our human understanding will always fall short. It is where we fall short that Faith must take over. In that aspect Faith and Understanding are at opposite ends of the Spectrum.

Tell me Fraiser,

Do you (or could you) fully understand the Trinity? How can three be one?

Do you (or could you) fully understand that God always existed and always will exist?

Do you (or could you) fully understand how the Holy Spirit interacted with Mary to bring Jesus into her womb?

You need not try to answer these questions, because you would not be able to. I use these questions because they are the most popular, but hopefully you get my point.

It is for us to know God, to try and do God’s Will, but to fully understand it is beyond or Human intellect.

Therefore Understanding and Faith are not synonymous

“understanding is a complete opposite to Faith.”

Since when? This is not the idea of faith presented in Scripture. Faith is a form of understanding not its opposite. Hebrews 11:3 says “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

Once again your view is defeated with Scripture. The only thing that is the opposite of understanding is misunderstanding, and faith is not a misunderstanding.

Should you seek to play the card that I have no right to interpret Scripture for myself, you should know that Augustine and Anselm (along with the majority of Protestant and Catholic theologians since) taught that religious knowledge is defined as “faith seeking understanding.” If faith seeks understanding then how can it be opposed to it?

I’m afraid you’ll have to do an enormous amount of explaining if you mean to defend the idea that faith opposes understanding. You’ll still come up short, I’m afraid.

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the great deal of detail in which you explain your case. It gives me a better feel for your thought process. Although I do disagree with many of your points, I must ask if you can share with me the sources by which you come to these conclusions. For the history and Council documents that I have read have painted an entirley different picture.

Give me some time to formulate a thoughtful response, for I would like to examine your post in further detail. In my response I plan to detail the doctine of Papal Infallability, seeing how this has been a stumbling block for you. After going through all your posts, I do feel that you have not quite understood this yet. Just keep this in mind, Understanding is a complete opposite to Faith. We cannot understand everything, at some point you must take Jesus at his word. See the following passages to see where I am going with this; (Matthew 18:18, Matthew 28:20, John 14:16-17, & 1 Timothy 3:16). If you would like, you can e-mail me at true_catholic@hotmail.com

I may have to write this in installments (no joke) because my faith journey cannot be explained in just a few short paragraphs. I do hope that we can all be charitable in our attitudes and responses.

TBT, your first question to me was, “Do you acknowledge that the Apostles left the truth and the authority in the hand of their successors, the bishops?” However, you begin in the second paragraph and throughout the majority of your post to attack sola scriptura. What I have observed both from having once defended the Roman Catholic faith, in addition to reading and listening to Roman Catholic apologists is (1.) Sola scriptura is what is first and foremost always attacked, criticized, and vilified as proof that Protestants are misled. Since I did not arrive at my present conclusion through impugning sola scriptura, I do not want to debate that in this particular post. As I first stated, I made the decision not to cross the Tiber because of discovering that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was indeed fallible. It was this discovery that prevented me from becoming R.C.

Now, back to your first question. I am aware that the Apostles laid their hands on others and commissioned others to preach the gospel and be bishops, elders, etc. in the church. What I would rather do than get into a debate mode regarding the early church, is explain to you what initially convinced me that the present Roman Catholic Church is not what she claims to be.

I understood that becoming R.C. was a serious committment. So serious in fact, that I wanted to discover what and who this church was. What better way than to read her history? As I began reading history, it slowly dawned on me that the R.C. Church of the Middle Ages up until the mid fifties, differed quite a bit from the latter 20th C. to present R.C. Church. In reading various declarations, pronounced infallibly by popes in previous centuries, I discovered that these popes were cut from a different cloth than post Vatican II popes. You make mention in your post that since the declaration of the dogma of Papal Infallibility (declared in 1870) that “there have been two official excathedra statements.” TBT, I suspect that you are aware that all the declarations by popes throughout the centuries made in official papal documents such as encyclicals and during ecumenical councils were binding and irreversable. In other words, although the R.C. Church, only “officially” proclaimed the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in 1870, they take the stand that Papal Infallibility existed since the conception of the Roman Catholic Church.

In reading the anathamas against Jews, Protestant heretics, schismatics, etc. proclaimed by previous popes such as Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence (Cantate Domino 1441), and anathamas made at the Council of Trent, to more recent anathamas such as the Syllabus of Errors, it is clear and irrefutable what these anathamas meant. These councils and popes expressed in clear, concise terms that anyone who was outside of the Roman Catholic Church was damned. The Council of Trent especially made it clear that the only way Protestants could be saved was to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican II changed all that. Vat. II lifted the anathamas against the Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox. Not only did Vatican II lift anathamas officially and dogmatically pronounced by previous councils and popes, but it also changed the Mass, by introducing the Novus Ordo Mass. Over 20 prayers were stripped from the Mass, even the prayers that priests had been saying for centuries during the consecration of the host during the Eucharist.

The result was that within a few short years, the Roman Catholic Church barely resembled the ancient church that she once had been. The fruit of that change is undeniable. There are those Catholics, old enough to remember the enormous change that occurred. Altars were ripped from their foundations in many churches and thrown into the garbage. Statues, relics, and altars were stripped from many sanctuaries. Catholics were told that they must now accept the communion host in the hand and no longer could kneel. The changes brought about were of gigantic proportions. So much so that Pope Paul VI, lamented over the condition of the post Vat. II R.C. Church saying “The smoke of Satan had entered the Church.” I cannot disagree. And why did this happen? From what I have read, one of the main architects of Vatican II is to blame, Archbishop Bognini. In fact, he had 6 Protestant advisors to assist him in the writing of the Vat. II documents, reshaping the Roman Catholic Church. His intentions are clear when he is quoted as saying, “We desire to do everything to facilitate the path of union for our separated brethren, by removing every stone that could constitute even the shadow of a risk of stumbling or of displeasure.” Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.

Bognini, who was the “Chief of the Litugical Revisionists,” sought to revise the liturgy in order to make it appealing to Protestants. The result of course, was that many, thousands upon thousands, of traditional Roman Catholics left the Church. One indication of the effects of Vat.II is that of annullments. (What I would call a Catholic divorce.) In 1952, there were 392 annullments worldwide. By 1997, there were 73,000 annullments in the United States alone. These statistics are from a Roman Catholic source.

I came to the conclusion, that the present day Roman Catholic Church is not the one, true, Apostolic Church founded on the rock of St. Peter. In my next post, I will be more specific in quoting various popes and councils from previous centuries. It was in fact, what these previous popes declared that brought me to this conclusion. I will leave you with a quote from Pope Eugene IV, made in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. “The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that no one of those existing outside the Catholic Church, heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal, but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

All stated infallibly, by the way. Post Vat. II popes have clearly contradicted this infallible proclamation. How can this be if excathedra statements are irreversible???

Until next time,

Darlene

You don’t need to apologize; I’m good at skimming.

I can’t guess what is blocking a road that I’m not even on. I just don’t find Rome appealing.

I can’t be sure what the second paragraph in your last comment means, but there seems to be a fallacy of composition. It is a truth that Darlene finds RC appealing, and it is also a truth that I don’t find RC appealing. That doesn’t, however, mean that Truth is different for everyone.

I agree with what you say in your third paragraph (I said virtually the same thing above, “we should not let our theology be decided by what does or does not appeal to us”), but I am a little confused by your change of position. In your previous comment you appear to argue the exact opposite….”I can now confidently claim that I am Home in the Church that Jesus Christ established. Ever since converting I have been at peace with my faith, with my life, and my family has been abundantly blessed.” To argue that personal comfort is a good reason to feel at home in the RC, but a bad reason to not bother with the RC is just silly.

I’m not saying, though, that my motives for ignoring RC have to do with personal comfort. I believe that the RC church is generally apostate; that is why I do not seek to be a part of it. The fact that I feel no personal desire to be a part of it is—though fortunate for me—not really important.

KWR