Because God guides the Church.
That’s it. All the rest is supporting evidence, infrastructure, scaffolding, and some kludges throw in for good measure.
Protestantism is ultimately ad hoc in that it maintains that God has guided the Church on some things but not on others. For instance, God inspired X books to be written and then guided Y people in the Church over Z centuries to discern which ones they were. But He didn’t guide the Church on other doctrines, so you have baptismal regeneration being taught everywhere from the very beginning, and other doctrines most Protestants reject as heresies.
Catholicism makes sense because God guides the Church. He protects her from error on her doctrines. Not just on the canon of Scripture but on all things concerning the Faith. This is consistent. But it takes faith to believe it. It cannot be proven through reason alone. And so God’s grace is involved, something we cannot control or even see.
That’s why we pray–for God to shower His grace upon all people, so that they might believe. And that’s why we make arguments–so that they might see that there are solid reasons and motives of credibility to make the full assent of faith to Christ and His Church.
For me, going back to Protestantism would mean rejecting this belief. And if I reject this belief it means I cannot trust the Church’s teachings. God did not guide them (or at least, not all of them), and I don’t know which ones He protected from error and which He did not. So I have to choose what claims of divine revelation seem credible to me and then interpret them myself and with what human opinions on them seem right to me.
Most Protestants choose the sixty-six-book Bible and become their own ultimate interpretive authority. Sure they may also choose Luther or Calvin or some Confessions to accept but they admit that these have no real authority over them. Only insofar as they accurately reflect the Bible’s meaning are they valid.
I don’t think God would design it such that we were each our own ultimate interpretive authority. No, instead He wanted to ensure that all men could know the truth that He revealed. So He built His Church and then has remained with her by the power of the Spirit, leading her to all truth. This Church is living and can distinguish orthodoxy from heresy, can clarify teachings, can respond to new questions and arguments, and can pronounce dogma that draws a line in the sand, separating what is true from what is false.
Because God guides the Church, we are in the blessed state of knowing the truth and being set free by it. It is a gift beyond description, and God did not hide it under a rock, but like the mustard seed planted it and gave it growth across the entire world. So today I thank our Lord for the gift of His Church and the gift of revealing the truth through her to us.
God does guide the Church.
“We have One Mediator, in Heaven.”
Christ knows His own, and they inhabit pews of all different stripes down here. Those whom He knows, are His Church.
Off to work. I’ll come back later to remove the daggers
Steve, I personally invite you to become Catholic, the fulfillment of Lutheranism.
This only works in a very general warm and fuzzy sense, unless you really think God is guiding His Church to fracture into thousands of little tiny pieces, all of which teach contradictory things – and hence that God is purposefully guiding a large portion of His Church into error.
I mean, fair enough, God does work through all the baptized (and the unbaptized for that matter), but we’re being a little more concrete and specific here.
Ha ha, while I’d love to have another Lutheran join our ranks, I would also agree with Steve’s assessment. Christ certainly knows His own, and I do believe His children inhabit pews of all different “stripes” on earth.
Certainly, Catholics believe Christ knows His own and undoubtedly has “other sheep also, who are not of this fold”. But with equal certainty He wills that “them also must I bring, that there be but one fold and one shepherd”.
It was with this in mind that the Lord, when about to leave the earth places the whole flock, the sheep and the lambs alike, in the supreme pastoral care of the Apostle, to take His place as the good shepherd on earth as His Vicar. For the same reason, and with the specific charge confirming his brethren in the faith that Christ had earlier pledged Him the promise of an unfailing faith. Reading that passage in Luke 22 carefully, especially the passage as it goes from you in singular to you in plural, leaves no doubt at all that Christ instituted His Church as a society subject to a single sovereign head on earth whose faith He promised personally to protect, and in union with whom the faith of all would be protected from error and hades for all time to come.
Hi Steve Martin,
You said,
God does guide the Church.
“We have One Mediator, in Heaven.”
Certainly. But we have many intercessors on earth and in heaven:
1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
James 5:19-22
King James Version (KJV)
19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
This is in accordance with the will of God:
1 Timothy 2:1
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
Christ knows His own, and they inhabit pews of all different stripes down here. Those whom He knows, are His Church.
But many who claim to be members of His Church, are actually not. He knows:
Matthew 7:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
“I became a Catholic in order to be more fully the Christian I was as a Lutheran, and that is what has happened.”
Richard John Neuhaus
AWESOME quote.
Same goes for me. Love to all of you in our wonderful Creator!
I think ‘sustains’ would be a better description than ‘guides’ in that it is more organic and more espressive of continuity. God not only shows the way (ie doctrine) but also provides nourishment (ie sacraments) for the journey.
Amen Devin.
This was the rock in my shoe as a Reformed Protestant. “Who is at the helm of this ship?” “Who do I listen to?” “who speaks for Christ?” “where in the 21st century is the equivalent of the Jerusalem Council of Acts to tell me what to believe?”
In 107AD St. Ignatius says “follow the Bishop as you would Christ” about a trillion times in his letters to 7 different churches. He pounds it home. How in the world can a Protestant abide by this statement of his? There is no answer to this question that does not end in St. Peters Basilica bictured above.
Misunderstanding the authority of the scriptures is at the true root of all the different christian beliefs out there. I believe scriptures such as II Pt 3:16-17 teach that Jesus gave us the scriptures to be the guidance, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The Jerusalem council in Acts was recorded so that we would know what the apostles, with God’s guidance, decided. I too feel frustrated with the seeming lack of guidance in all the denominations. But the solution is not to turn the control over to other men, but to study and pray and seek to understand God’s word as we are told in II Tm 2:15, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” While there is a lot of confusion out there, there are also some churches who are simply churches that belong to Jesus, worshiping him according to the NT pattern, studying to show themselves God’s workmen. The temple veil was torn when Jesus gave Himself on the cross, we no longer need a priest to stand between us and God. Praise God, I can enter the Holy of Holies!
Laura–it may surprise you but Catholics clearly teach the priesthood of all believers and that all Christians, from the least to the greatest, can indeed enter the Holy of Holies. And we do.
But what happens on a spiritual level, as you describe, we also accept, with the caveat that the ordained priesthood can take us a couple steps deeper into that same realm. The purpose of receiving Christ in the Sacraments is not to determine who is saved or not–many Protestant Christians such as yourself will be saved, assuming you live in good conscience with God and attain heaven–and not a few Catholics, sadly, will miss that boat.
But if we live for Jesus Christ, we will be side by side, and all through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. That is not and has never been the issue. But why take only the crumbs from the table when Jesus offers us the Marriage Supper every time we attend the Mass? Why take, as Dr Scott Hahn (former Calvinist and current Catholic apologist par excellence) says, the “menu but not the meal?”
What the priesthood (ordained clergy that is) brings to us is the power to LIVE for Christ in the fullest way possible on this earth, and does so by bringing us to Him and He to us in His very body and blood, not spiritually but tangibly, in Holy Communion or what we refer to as the Holy Eucharist. And yet even that gift is always preceded by a strong and healthy dose of the Word of God through the Bible or written Word of God–no Mass is complete without both of these elements, the Word and the Sacrament.
And if Protestants reject the clergy/laity distinction, then why do they have pastors? Clearly we need a personal relationship with both Christ and His Church on earth. Why not have it all?
Laura,
You said:
“I too feel frustrated with the seeming lack of guidance in all the denominations. But the solution is not to turn the control over to other men, but to study and pray and seek to understand God’s word as we are told in II Tm 2:15, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” ”
2 quick points.
1. I tried your solution of “pray and seek to understand God’s word” for years. Can you see how I came to the conclusion that doing so was simply “turning control over to other men”? I came to the conclusion that the “other man” was me.
2. Concerning 2Tim 2:15: this is an Apostle saying this to a BISHOP in the Church! Do you see how there is limited aplication to you and I? Sure study scripture, “rightly divide” or “correctly handle” it. But when Timothy disagreed with one of his congregants in his local church, who got to say there interpretation was correct? Who was correctly handling the word then? Timothy of course. 2 Tomothy is a book from Paul to Timothy, not everything applies to you!
1:6:
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
Timothy was ordained (yes, as in apostolic succession ordained) by Paul. Timothy has a gift that neither you nor I have. He has the ability to “be correct” in a disagreement of interpretation. That ability is passed to all bishops in succession from Timothy down to this day.
Great points!
Hi Laura,
You said:
Misunderstanding the authority of the scriptures is at the true root of all the different christian beliefs out there.
No, Laura. It is disobeying the authority of the Church.
I believe scriptures such as II Pt 3:16-17
You mean, II Tim 3:16:17
teach that Jesus gave us the scriptures to be the guidance, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
If you don’t mind, lets read that again. Before we do, ask yourself these questions:
1. Who is teaching, rebuking, correcting and training the man of God?
2. Is the man of God reading the Scripture himself? Or is someone explaining to him the Word of God?
3. Does the verse say that Scripture is “necessary”? Or merely “useful”?
What we, Catholics, see in that verse, is a confirmation of the “three legged stool” of passing on the Faith. Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium. St. Paul, a Bishop of the Catholic Church, is teaching (i.e. exercising the Tradition of Magisterium which is commanded in John 28:19-20) St. Timothy how to pass on Tradition using Scripture when it is useful.
There is nothing there about Scripture alone. Read the rest of 2 Tim and you will find that St. Paul is teaching how to preach and teach in the entire Epistle. He is not telling St. Timothy to pass out Bibles and let them discover the truth on their own.
2 Tim 2:2
2 Timothy 2:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
The Jerusalem council in Acts was recorded so that we would know what the apostles, with God’s guidance, decided.
So that we could see that Jesus Christ had established an authoritative Church. See also Matt 18:17.
I too feel frustrated with the seeming lack of guidance in all the denominations. But the solution is not to turn the control over to other men,
Who is wiser, you or God? God says that we must submit to the men of His Church:
Hebrews 13:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Whom should I believe Laura? You or Scripture?
but to study and pray and seek to understand God’s word as we are told in II Tm 2:15, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
This is true. But it doesn’t say, “go out and study all alone”. St. Paul, who was taught by Christ, Himself, came back to the Church to ascertain that he was not running in vain:
Galatians 2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
While there is a lot of confusion out there, there are also some churches who are simply churches that belong to Jesus,
Not everyone who claims to belong to Jesus, actually belongs to Jesus.
Matt 7:21
Matthew 7:21
King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
worshiping him according to the NT pattern,
The NT pattern of worship is displayed only in Sacramental Churches (Catholic, Orthodox and high Anglicanism):
1 Corinthians 11:26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
studying to show themselves God’s workmen.
That is a refference to RCIA. The Rite of Christian Initiation of adults.
The temple veil was torn when Jesus gave Himself on the cross, we no longer need a priest to stand between us and God.
As someone astutely remarked before me, “why then do you have Pastors?”
There is one sacrifice which is still being offered to the Father. The once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ:
Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.
Praise God, I can enter the Holy of Holies!
Only those who keep the Commandments of God and partake of the Holy Eucharist, can enter the Holy of Holies:
Revelation 22:13-22
King James Version (KJV)
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
Whoa, this is great. I wrote something today that dovetails nicely, so we are on a wavelength today!
Leila I saw that–I think we think alike! Now just have to get that Shawn Madden on board.
Ha ha, now that one might take a full-on miracle!
Great post Devin. Going to the heart of the Protestant/Catholic divide: authority. Everything else clicks into place.
I think another problem is that for Protestants, the Church is an ‘afterthought’ of sorts. You get saved apart from the Church, and you become a member of the Church as a consequence of being saved. It’s similar to how Protestants view entering into a relationship with the Trinity as a sure consequence of getting saved, but not viewing it as synonymous with getting saved (as Catholics do).
It’s all tied into soteriology. Luther had to justify getting saved while not in union with the Church, even though he held to a higher view of the Church than most Protestants do today. The problem is, as time went on, the logical implications of Luther’s approach became more pronounced, so that now even denominations don’t matter as Christians in one denomination consider Christians in another denomination to be on equal ground. This is why at the end of an altar call after one gets saved their final instructions are to “go find a [unnamed] bible based church to join”.
The amount of work you’d have to do to show that God guides the RCC is simply overwhelming. I don’t think many people realize just how much is required to evince God’s existence, let alone Jesus’ resurrection or his institution of this that or the other church.
Show, evince? It takes faith to believe that the Trinity is true and that God guides the Catholic Church.
So we can use reason to get us so far, to provide motives of credibility, but it does then take a decision to make the assent of faith or not.
As an atheist, I can’t grant that there is any faith as you’d understand it. I think you’d infer the Trinity, or Church’s guidance (etc.) just like any other belief. But, that’s neither here nor there.
The motives of credibility are the existence of God and the fact of revelation (usually argued for by Jesus’ resurrection), right?
It’s those that I’d take to be overwhelming tasks. It’s not near enough to just wave in the Quinque Viae’s direction and throw a Habermas book at the unbeliever :p. (not saying all Catholics do this)
God’s existence can be known in many ways, through nature and reason itself. For example, apart from the simple consideration that the existence of contingent beings requires the existence of a necessary Being, the fact of fine tuning in the universe, especially the early universe, points towards not merely God’s existence, but even His incomprehensible intelligence and unspeakable goodness in bringing our existence about.
After this has been acknowledged, we come to the second question of how we can know about this God, and if revelation has occurred or why it is necessary and the like. In answer to this, those marks which render assent to revelation certain are indeed miracles like the Resurrection and also prophecies.
This is just sketching how you might try to establish the motives of credibility. Actually doing these things is quite another thing.
But, the sketch itself seems naive to me:
Since knowledge is factive, to say God’s existence can be known begs the question against the atheist.
Further, look at the fine-tuning argument you mentioned. Have you heard of any of the following?
1. The principle of indifference.
2. Bayesian probability.
3. Fallacy of undetermined evidence.
4. Prosecutor’s Fallacy.
Unless you’re fairly fluent with these concepts (and there are still others), I’d doubt you could formulate a fine-tuning argument that could even get off the ground.
The same thing goes for the Resurrection. There are so many objections I’d raise to that. Your task just seems daunting.
Tree,
I appreciate your irenic tone in wanting to engage in discussion here. But at this time I don’t have the bandwidth to engage on these arguments and challenges. I would suggest that you head over to Edward Feser’s blog which is dedicated to just such discussions: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/
Thanks!
Devin
Well, as Devin said, this may not be the blog for the kind of discussion you have in mind, but yes, I think I can manage a formulation of the argument from fine tuning.
Given the existence in nature of several constants which can assume a fairly wide range of values, fine tuning is defined as the proposition that the range of physically possible life precluding configurations is vastly, vastly greater than physically possible life permitting configurations. The inference of design follows from this.
While you’ll have to decide whether that simple formulation meets your rigorous standards or not, I’ll say that yes, I’m fairly familiar with basic probability and such as you mentioned above.
Ok, maybe we could continue this convo elsewhere?
As to your formulation, it’s not a fine-tuning argument. To become one, we’d have to say that given fine-tuning, a life-permitting universe is more probable on theism than atheism. We could try to infer design from this, but not just from fine-tuning.
Hi againTree,
This is just sketching how you might try to establish the motives of credibility. Actually doing these things is quite another thing.
But, the sketch itself seems naive to me:
Since knowledge is factive, to say God’s existence can be known begs the question against the atheist.
1. Think about it. An atheist asserts that God does not exist. Who is begging the question.
2. We do have facts proving God’s existence. But facts are not always accepted by the unbelieving party. Have you ever heard of the Flat Earth Society?
Further, look at the fine-tuning argument you mentioned. Have you heard of any of the following?
1. The principle of indifference.
2. Bayesian probability.
3. Fallacy of undetermined evidence.
4. Prosecutor’s Fallacy.
I have now.
Unless you’re fairly fluent with these concepts (and there are still others), I’d doubt you could formulate a fine-tuning argument that could even get off the ground.
Sounds like you’ve made up your mind.
The same thing goes for the Resurrection. There are so many objections I’d raise to that. Your task just seems daunting.
1. You’re assuming some task? As though we must prove something to someone. That is false. This may sound sort of “members only” and “snooty”, but the fact is:
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Unless God the Father, opens your eyes to His Grace in this world, no amount of argumentation will convince you of anything Spiritual.
2. But IF He does. YOU will look at all those theories you enumerated and decimate them yourself. We will simply stand back and watch.
Hi Tree,
You said:
As an atheist, I can’t grant that there is any faith as you’d understand it.
How do you understand faith?
Here’s how I understand faith. I have faith in my mom. She has loved me and taken care of me all my life. I trust her completely.
I think you’d infer the Trinity, or Church’s guidance (etc.) just like any other belief. But, that’s neither here nor there.
I’m not sure what you mean. Unless you are saying that you don’t “trust” the Church. Which is key to believing her doctrines. But not to believing in God’s existence. Many who believe in God do not trust the Catholic Church.
The motives of credibility are the existence of God and the fact of revelation (usually argued for by Jesus’ resurrection), right?
“Motives of credibility”? Reasons to believe?
I don’t speak for everyone here, but my reasons to believe are all over the place. All I have to do is look around and see that only God could have made such a wondrous creation.
It’s those that I’d take to be overwhelming tasks. It’s not near enough to just wave in the Quinque Viae’s direction and throw a Habermas book at the unbeliever :p. (not saying all Catholics do this)
Been there. I wasn’t brought to faith by the convincing arguments of believers. If anything, they may have turned me off by their insisting that I “didn’t mean what I was saying.”
However, if I was a typical atheist, then there will be times when you will reach out to an Entity which you can’t see. You might curse yourself for being so foolish.
If that ever happens to you, go with the flow. Ask Him to prove Himself to you. He will.
Tree,
Well, I have no objection to discussing the motives of credibility here, if Devin is fine with it. Now, yes, you’re right, I was merely defining my terms above. First the observation, then the inference. For the first part, and for convenience and reference, feeling no need to redo what others have already documented well,
“In investigating the initial conditions of the Big Bang, one is also confronted with two arbitrary parameters governing the expansion of the universe: Wo, related to the density of the universe, and Ho, related to the speed of the expansion. Observations indicate that at 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang the universe was expanding at a fantastically special rate of speed with a total density close to the critical value on the borderline between recollapse and everlasting expansion. Hawking estimated that even a decrease of one part in a million million when the temperature of the universe was 1010 degrees would have resulted in the universe’s recollapse long ago; a similar increase would have precluded the galaxies from condensing out of the expanding matter.
At the Planck time, 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang, the density of the universe must have apparently been within about one part in 1060 of the critical density at which space is flat. This results in the so-called “flatness problem”: why is the universe expanding at just such a rate that space is Euclidean rather than curved? A second problem that arises is the “homogeneity problem.” There is a very narrow range of initial conditions which must obtain if galaxies are to form later. If the initial inhomogeneity ratio were > 10-2, then non-uniformities would condense prematurely into black holes before the stars form. But if the ratio were < 10-5, inhomogeneities would be insufficient to condense into galaxies. Because matter in the universe is clumped into galaxies, which is a necessary condition of life, the initial inhomogeneity ratio appears to be incredibly fine-tuned."
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html
As to the second,
If you would like a formulation involving statistical procedures, it would be something like this – assuming no purposeful interference as a null hypothesis, the probability of a life precluding universe is then far greater than that of a life permitting one. Now, the fact of the existence of life can cause us to reasonably reject, with statistical significance, the null hypothesis.
Alternatively, if you prefer the use of conditional probability, the probability that a possible configuration of the universe permits the conditions for life to form is vanishingly small. Thus, that life should ever form given a random choice between varying possible configurations of the universe is unlikely in the extreme. It would follow then, with the existence of life as a given that the probability that this universe came about without intent would likewise be extremely small.
This inference is the prosecutor’s fallacy. I mentioned it earlier because fine-tuning arguments tend to commit it.
“[I]f the truth of a hypothesis would make some phenomenon extremely unlikely to be observed, then the observation of that phenomenon makes the hypothesis correspondingly unlikely to be true. This inference is known as the Prosecutor’s Fallacy.”
Colin Howson (2011-07-27). Objecting to God (p. 68). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Howson
Aside from this, you haven’t taken multi-verse away from the atheist yet. So, you haven’t shown that a life-permitting universe is highly unlikely on atheism. Further, even if you did show that some generic life-permitting universe was more probable on theism than atheism and didn’t commit the prosecutor’s fallacy, the actual life-permitting universe we observe is less likely on theism than atheism. (e.g., billions of years of empty space, we may very well be the highest level of intelligence evolved, etc.) i.e., the argument would commit the fallacy of undetermined evidence.
Hi again Tree,
You said,
This inference is the prosecutor’s fallacy. I mentioned it earlier because fine-tuning arguments tend to commit it…..So, you haven’t shown that a life-permitting universe is highly unlikely on atheism….
Its not “unlikely”. Its impossible.
Simple metaphor. Say that you walk on the beach and you see the words, “I love Lucy” written in the sand. Will you presume that the action of the waves has written this message in the sand? I wouldn’t. I would presume that some human had written that message.
Why? Because only humans can do intelligent tasks.
Now consider that even the simplest living organism has messages (i.e. codes) written into its dna which are thousands of times more complex than the simple three word sentence found in the sand.
It is impossible that any living thing came to be by mere chance.
Further, even if you did show that some generic life-permitting universe was more probable on theism than atheism and didn’t commit the prosecutor’s fallacy, the actual life-permitting universe we observe is less likely on theism than atheism. (e.g., billions of years of empty space, we may very well be the highest level of intelligence evolved, etc.) i.e., the argument would commit the fallacy of undetermined evidence.
Reasonableness is the test which should be applied. It is not reasonable that any living thing could come to being without being created by a Higher Power.
It takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a believer. You believe that highly intricate living things could make themselves or could be created by accident.
That is the biggest leap of faith of all.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hi Tree,
You said,
The amount of work you’d have to do to show that God guides the RCC is simply overwhelming.
The way I look at it, its sort of like sales. When people are need the product, they do whatever it takes to get it. No amount of work is an obstacle at that point.
I don’t think many people realize just how much is required to evince God’s existence, let alone Jesus’ resurrection or his institution of this that or the other church.
Having come back to the Church from atheism, I can assert that it is a matter of grace. Suddenly, all the evidence of God’s existence which I used to reject out of hand, became irrefutable to me. Then the work began, in trying to discern the True Church. Studying the history of the Church and the Scriptures, led me to the Catholic Church.
Hi Tree,
You said,
The amount of work you’d have to do to show that God guides the RCC is simply overwhelming.
The way I look at it, its sort of like sales. When people are need the product, they do whatever it takes to get it. No amount of work is an obstacle at that point.
I don’t think many people realize just how much is required to evince God’s existence, let alone Jesus’ resurrection or his institution of this that or the other church.
Having come back to the Church from atheism, I can assert that it is a matter of grace. Suddenly, all the evidence of God’s existence which I used to reject out of hand, became irrefutable to me. Then the work began, in trying to discern the True Church. Studying the history of the Church and the Scriptures, led me to the Catholic Church.
Sorry for the duplicate entry. I must have pushed the wrong “reply” button on the first attempt.
To believe that God would guide His Church until the end of time is merely to believe the divine promise, to have faith in Truth Himself and in His own words, that the gates of hell would not prevail, that the faith of Peter would not fail. It would be blasphemous to hold that Jesus Christ is an unfaithful or adulterous spouse, and on the contrary He was absolutely confident of His ability to teach men through His Church, that He told her that he who hears her, hears Him, that he who refused to listen to her judgment between two Christians on any matter should be treated as excommunicated.
Awesome Nishant!
Thank you Devin. “Awesome” is how I feel about this entire blog. Kudos for another great post.
Wow Nishant I am honored by your words.
Was God guiding the church when bishops were covering up child molestation?
If you read the post, you would see that I specify God guides the Church into all truth, on doctrine concerning faith and morals.
God always respects man’s free will. And so though He abhors evil like child molestation or covering it up, He will not break a person’s will to compel them against what they decide to do. He may thwart it at times in other ways but that is extraordinary.
So priests and bishops doing evil things contradicts nothing I have said here.
“Was God guiding the church when bishops were covering up child molestation?”
Was God guiding the Church when Peter cut off a dudes ear or when he denied Christ 3 times?
Your argument is a straw man my friend. Catholicism may be wrong or even evil, but if so, let it be called evil for the right reasons, not for silly straw men.
Not only are there too many denominations to choose from in today’s Protestant world, but not one of them has the fullness of faith. Trust me – I feel like I tried ‘em all before embracing the Catholic Church! After years of grappling with the fact that not one Protestant church represented the faith of the early Christians, being Catholic is peace and joyous relief.
I don’t think we can have it both ways. You are saying that God guides the Church, but the Church has done some pretty nasty stuff – crusades, inquisitions, burning people at the stake, the silence of the Church in the face of the holocaust, and the sex scandals and cover ups of our own times. These involve more than just the occasional bishop or priest. A lot of this stuff was done by the Church under the guidance of the Bishops. And in matters of theology: Did God guide the Church to make the Apocrypha part of the Bible against the witness of the Hebrew Canon? Did God guide the Catholic Church to condemn heliocentrism as “false and contrary to scripture”? Did God guide the Church into selling the forgiveness of sins in the form of indulgences? Basically, we’d be saying that God guides the Church except for when He doesn’t guide the Church. Or else, He guides the Church, but the Church does not always follow that guidance. Either way, you wind up with the same problem that Protestants have, “God has guided the Church on some things but not on others.”
I accept the New Testament as authoritative. I accept the Apostles and Nicene Creeds – and Chalcedon – as authoritative statements on the grounds that they bear witness to the faith as received and understood by the Church from the beginning.
I really don’t mean to be impolite, and perhaps my comment will reveal some logical error of mine which one of you could perhaps be so kind as to correct for me.
God Bless You All and Thank You for the Intriguing Discussion.
Charles R. Wheeler
Charles,
I counted 10 seperate issues you brought up ranging from totally false accusations to straw men to mild misunderstandings. Nevertheless, they cant all be dealt with in a combox. So, suffice it to say that from the perspective of a Catholic who once was a Protestant and had almost every concern you raise, I can tell you that whether the Catholic Church is true or false, you have many misconceptions.
For example, let’s go ahead and agree that Hitler is a bad guy. But let’s not say it is because he had a weird mustache. That is coming to the right conclusion for the wrong reason, and it makes you look uninformed and biased to say the least.
Catholicism may be the antichrist, but if so, it’s not because of the reasons you give. Most of which are just laughably false.
If you are genuinely interested in at least opposing Catholicism for the right reasons, I am willing to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue if you wish, whether here or by email.
Peace to you,
David Meyer
Hi Charles,
I don’t think we can have it both ways. You are saying that God guides the Church, but the Church has done some pretty nasty stuff – crusades, inquisitions, burning people at the stake, the silence of the Church in the face of the holocaust, and the sex scandals and cover ups of our own times…..
Any evil ever committed by any man was done IN SPITE of the Teachings of the Catholic Church, not because of them.
These involve more than just the occasional bishop or priest. A lot of this stuff was done by the Church under the guidance of the Bishops….
For instance?
And in matters of theology: Did God guide the Church to make the Apocrypha part of the Bible against the witness of the Hebrew Canon?
Strange question. 78 Hebrews interpreted the Old Testament into Greek before the time of Christ and that version is called the Septuagint. It is the version of the OT which Christ used.
Your assumption that the 66 book Canon is the original or somehow the correct Canon is false.
Did God guide the Catholic Church to condemn heliocentrism as “false and contrary to scripture”?
The Church didn’t condemn “heliocentrism”. One court case came to the conclusion that Galileo was wrong because he stated that the Scriptures contained error.
Centuries before, “heliocentrism” was already being taught by St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, Copernicus and others. If the Church had condemned heliocentrism, they would also have been condemned.
Did God guide the Church into selling the forgiveness of sins in the form of indulgences?
Yes:
Luke 11:41
But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.
Matthew 19:21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mark 9:41
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Basically, we’d be saying that God guides the Church except for when He doesn’t guide the Church. Or else, He guides the Church, but the Church does not always follow that guidance. Either way, you wind up with the same problem that Protestants have, “God has guided the Church on some things but not on others.”
God guides the Church in all matters. Individuals decide for themselves whether they will accept His guidance:
Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
I accept the New Testament as authoritative. I accept the Apostles and Nicene Creeds – and Chalcedon – as authoritative statements on the grounds that they bear witness to the faith as received and understood by the Church from the beginning.
As do we.
I really don’t mean to be impolite,
I don’t consider it impolite.
and perhaps my comment will reveal some logical error of mine which one of you could perhaps be so kind as to correct for me.
I hope that helps.
God Bless You All and Thank You for the Intriguing Discussion.
And you as well,
Sincerely,
De Maria
It has been 7 years this coming October 4 since I “returned home” to the Catholic Church. At one point, even after returning, I renounced the whole thing for around 6 months and yet wanted to remain “catholic” so I gave the Anglican/Episcopalian thing a try. Not a good move. There is indeed something wrong with the concept that N T Wright and Bishop John Shelby Spong can fellowship hand in hand and God (He/She/It) would not mind a bit. In any case, for me on and off that lasted around 6 months total, although only officially a member of that sect for just over 2 months. I cannot recall a more miserable time in my spiritual life ever.
I think it was Steve Ray who said that he ultimately became Roman Catholic because he finally realized it was either that or agnosticism. I agree. For me, every bit of it came down to the authority issue. Christ is either contained in a book, self-interpreted, or even (in the case of Anglicanism) in light of some early traditions but not all (you get to pick which ones) or He is revealed through the Church who gave us that book, and that book is an intregal part of but not the whole of the authority. It cannot be both.
When I was still Protestant but inching my way back, an athiest friend and I used to have friendly arguments by the hour. His main question was one I had no answer for then–he wondered quite simply why he should trust in a book? If I had it to do over, I could now share with him the 3 legged stool of Sacred Scripture, Sacred (not all) Tradition, and the Magisterium, a living group of successors to Christ’s message and the original Apostles who bring the other two to life for us in our day and age. And while a Church of 1 billion strong certainly has her problems, the authority issue is at least settled in the key areas of faith and morals. Not always followed perfectly, no, as you said earlier here, but it is there and available. And true.
The Bible is absolutely the Word of God and carries within its pages the breath of the Holy Spirit. No other book can claim that nor ever will. But it was never meant to be read in a vacuum. I will always wish I could re-live those 6 months of doubt and fear–for that is what they were based upon–but I thank God daily for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Through that gift I will not have to do so. Ever. And I will not, by God’s grace, be going whale-hunting with Jonah again! For in reality, that is what Protestantism is.
NOTE I said “Protestantism” not all Protestants by any means. It is the system that is flawed, not the people within it. Many Christians in other traditions are far closer to Christ than me, that is for sure. The issue is not whether Protestants are Christians–many if not most are. The issue is whether they are in the fullness of the truth they have in Christ, as the quote from the late Father Richard John Neuhaus shared by Steve above “I became a Catholic in order to be more fully the Christian I was as a Lutheran, and that is what has happened,” indicates so beautifully.
But the seat of authority is in Rome or nothing else really counts. I appreciate your “5 words” and your attitude as well, Devin. You get it. I have never heard you once hassle or harass our Protestant brothers and sisters, and yet you stand strongly for Christ and His Holy Church–holy due to Him. Holy in spite of us.
I think if more Catholic Christians carried themselves as you do, we would have more Catholic Christians. God bless. You are one voice needed by both Protestant and Catholic Christians. And you use it well.
To all of you who have paid the price to cross the Tiber: Thanks for your forthright, charitable, & crucial witness to the truth of Christ & His Church. Like many cradle Catholics, my appreciation and understanding of the Church has been increased exponentially by your generous exposition of your discoveries.
Attentive cradle Catholics learn from your example to pray more authentically & study more diligently to make the faith they were given their own. This is the Pearl of Great Price, requring if not blood, then at least sweat & tears. Nothing really good comes without effort, and God is the greatest good.
Pingback: Why Catholicism makes sense, in five words... - Christian Forums
Without God, there is only the abyss.
Without our savior Jesus Christ, all is sin and death.
Without the the light of the world, our Church, all is darkness.
Holy Spirit, guide your Church into all Truth.
Brothers and sisters, let your light shine!
Beautiful, Jonathan!