You replied: You are quoting Josh McDowell. Outstanding! :)
I have read some of his work, but I was actually quoting C.S. Lewis and "Mere Christianity".
I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".
What is the distinction? In either case, God is the power behind it. Catholics don't make the claim that our leaders are infallible based on their own ability! It is clear that the Tradition of the Church, the Scriptures and the Fathers, note that God infallibly guides His Bride. Thus, when I mention earlier that the Council determined the contents of Scripture, this is based on the Holy Spirit's guidance, Who was able to "guide" those men to infallibly determine Scripture.
Whether it is on the contents of Scripture OR making a decision on a belief ("is Jesus the same essence as God the Father?"), do you not agree that God would protect His Church, the Faithful, from error? If you think that the Scriptures are infallible, I do not understand why you refuse to accept God working through these same men to make decisions on the Faith. What good is Scriptures, frankly, if people have incorrect ideas about God that are not corrected?
It just seems odd to me that so many controversial (according to Protestants) teachings were not included.
They were NOT controversial at the time! Paul wrote to the Galatians about Judaizers and circumcision. Why? Because of false teachers who were influencing the community. Paul didn't write about irregular practices of the Eucharist (as in Corinth) because there WERE no such problems. Things like "Mary is the Mother of God" hadn't come up while the Apostles were alive or everyone agreed with that teaching and it never came up. Again, the writings were directed at people from the First Century, not the Sixteenth Century. Thus, it is illogical to believe that Paul should have discussed things that didn't come up - either because they were commonly held (Eucharist is Christ's Body) or were not theologically discussed yet (Mary was Assumed into heaven).
Can you tell me why God would change how He leads His Church? What He did with the Apostles, we believe He continues today and until the end of time. A visible Church that authoritatively interprets Scriptures. In matters of faith and morals, we need a Body that protects what was handed down - the Deposit of Faith. This is serious business, because we believe that Deposit CAME FROM GOD. It is not subject to our spin or change with the culture. Nothing is added to it (there will NEVER be a fourth person in the Trinity, women will NEVER be ordained by the Church, and so forth - no matter what culture says).History has taught us that men alone will not agree on what the Scripture tells us. Thus, we need an authority protected by God Himself.
Thus, while people say that the Spirit leads them to believe "X" or "Y", we MUST disagree, as the Spirit of Truthy doesn't teach two different things. THAT is what the Church is for. Can you imagine if no one could point to a teaching (is God one, two or three or four persons) that was TRUE? What would BE the point of Scriptures if there was not something to back it up and say "THIS is what it means"?
I'll put my trust in God's word
Can you go through the process of proving that the Bible is God's Word WITHOUT the witness of the Church? The Bible is not self-attesting in its individual books! Explain Philemon or Jude. Why? I have yet to hear an answer on this front.
From all of your posts on related matters, it is becoming more clear to me that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads non-Catholic-clergy at all.
I never said that! What I am saying is that YOU (or HIM) cannot be sure if the pastor at your church is teaching the truth, or his own version of the truth. Sure, he might happen to coincide with the Apostolic sense of the Scriptures - what God meant for Scripture to teach. He might happen to teach VERY Catholic teachings, such as on abortion or the Trinity. But when they deviate from Catholic teachings, rest assured, they are wrong and are not following the Spirit, but their own personal ideas. God does not teach its Church one thing, and your pastor another.
The Spirit is most certainly active in your pastor. We can know someone by their fruit. But we are speaking on two different levels. I am not speaking about a person's personal sanctification. I am speaking about a person's knowledge of God, about proper teachings that God has given His Apostles. Those don't change - despite what you pastor thinks is his personal abilities in the Spirit to be holy and free from sin. God has given the Church Apostles, teachers, preachers, prophets, and so forth. We are not ALL teachers. We are not ALL prophets. Your pastor has heard God's calling to proclaim the Word. But it is not supposed to be according to HIS opinion, but God's. He has already given this to the Apostles and their teachings - both oral and written. Deviate from that, and you are following men, whether you admit this or not.
Regards
As a very quick sidebar, I have heard different things, was C.S. Lewis an Anglican?
Me: "I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".
What is the distinction? In either case, God is the power behind it. Catholics don't make the claim that our leaders are infallible based on their own ability!
I have learned from you all and do understand that Catholics do not claim infallibility on their own merit. My distinction was based on the concept of cooperation, I think of a guide as being less authoritative than a director. (If I'm wrong about this I do want to know.) I think of cooperation as that between two separate and distinct entities. Yes, you have God's help, but in order to cooperate you must add something from your own self which is not of God. Isn't this free will? My understanding of what you all are saying is that God "partners" with you to accomplish His will. Yes, you might say God is the major partner, but your "self" is still necessary. Is this fair?
Whether it is on the contents of Scripture OR making a decision on a belief ("is Jesus the same essence as God the Father?"), do you not agree that God would protect His Church, the Faithful, from error?
You would say that my church is not part of the Church, but that I as an individual might be a part of it or of the Faithful. Clearly, at least one of us is in error on a number of issues. Which of us is God not protecting? :) Or, if I disagree with your leaders, am I not one of the faithful?
If you think that the Scriptures are infallible, I do not understand why you refuse to accept God working through these same men to make decisions on the Faith.
That's because I don't believe the scriptures ultimately came from these men. I have no problem with the idea of God giving special wisdom to certain people, like Solomon, but I'm not sure that these special abilities are necessarily transferable from man to man, at least not on the grand scale that you require. Too many have been proven unworthy throughout the ages. I know that you will say that "THE CHURCH" is still infallible despite some bad apples, but I have never heard an explanation of how an infallible Church allows bad apples.
Thus, it is illogical to believe that Paul should have discussed things that didn't come up - either because they were commonly held (Eucharist is Christ's Body) or were not theologically discussed yet (Mary was Assumed into heaven).
I certainly wouldn't presume to tell Paul what he should or should not have written. :) My point was that God did know the future and He could have so easily avoided the whole Reformation by inspiring a few more lines. But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians, then I suppose those are God's ways. (I know you never said you thought the vast majority of us are lost, but if you have a guess, I would love to hear it. :)
In matters of faith and morals, we need a Body that protects what was handed down - the Deposit of Faith. This is serious business, because we believe that Deposit CAME FROM GOD. It is not subject to our spin or change with the culture. Nothing is added to it ... (emphasis added)
What about saying mass only in Latin? What about eating meat on Fridays? What about encouraging Catholics to actually read the Bible?
What would BE the point of Scriptures if there was not something to back it up and say "THIS is what it means"?
Well, none, I suppose. That's what we think the Holy Spirit does. You believe that the Spirit only speaks to a few in your hierarchy, and we believe that the Spirit speaks to all believers. (It's not like it's a long distance call either! :) I agree that the Spirit does not send out mixed messages, which must mean that wherever there is error, it must be on the receiver's end. We are all fallible men, after all.
Can you go through the process of proving that the Bible is God's Word WITHOUT the witness of the Church? The Bible is not self-attesting in its individual books! Explain Philemon or Jude. Why? I have yet to hear an answer on this front.
Yes, I can, but it won't be to your satisfaction. If I were to quote internally, such as from 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you have already been ordered to interpret that away. It would be the same for any other verse. I could go further and point to such things as unity and the prophecies, but you are again waiting for me with dogma to refute it. I could throw in some external arguments as well (historicity, integrity of scribes, indestructibility of the book, etc.), but you are barred from believing them, even if they made perfect sense to you. It's a no win situation because you are not allowed to engage with an open mind. Everything you think and say first has to go through a lens, about which origin we honestly disagree.