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.
As far as I know, he was. I hear that Tolkein could never bring him the rest of the way!
My distinction was based on the concept of cooperation, I think of a guide as being less authoritative than a director.
We believe that God allows us to use our intelligence and powers of the mind to make decisions, guided by the will that is led by the Spirit. God provided the visible evidence that led to only one conclusion on each epistle. Thus, there is a cooperation, man does use his knowledge, and God ensures that we make the correct decisions, but not by overpowering us. We believe that God is more behind the scenes, so to speak, then a glorified vision that gave the Bible's table of contents. God COULD do it that way, but no one reported that this is how it happened.
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
I disagree with that definition of cooperation. That is a human definition, and would apply between two humans. But with God, we cannot "add" anything, strictly speaking. God has given us EVERYTHING. Both in nature and in grace. However, God has given us the ability to be secondary causes. This is a concept that many Protestants are not aware of or don't understand. An obvious example is child birth. Men and women are secondary causes of that baby forming. Biologically speaking, a baby will not form without the two coming together (ordinarily. Let's leave out the artificial stuff for now). Thus, we are secondary causes - although God makes it possible by creating us with our respective parts.
God gives us free will in the sense that WE are secondary causes of our actions. We are not puppets. But free will does NOT ignore that God is the primary cause of all. As St. Augustine said, "God merely crowns the gifts that He has given man". God rewards His own gifts and their utilization by us as secondary causes.
By realizing that men are secondary causes, that we are operative and have free will to choose - but keeping in mind that God is the primary cause and will "provide" for certain events, it is clear that we can attribute the Bible's compilation to both man and God. Man used his own abilities to judge what belonged and what didn't, while God provided man the "evidence" to be able to make the judgment - the Spirit was certainly among these men, but not to overpower them.
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?
That is true. And you does not protect each individual's set of beliefs. You have admitted as such very recently regarding OSAS. Who's to say you are incorrect on the Eucharist, if you base you beliefs on your OWN understanding (alone) of Scripture? As to your disagreement, [still trying to "catch" me :)], again, I will say I cannot make that judgment because I don't know you "knowledge" of the Catholic faith and your understanding. Are you REALLY rejecting the Church, knowing that it is the continuation of the Church established by Christ? I would doubt that now. Perhaps we can say you are still "invincibly ignorant". You have been raised in a particular background, taught particular things. It takes time to overcome such biases and ideas. So I can't say the reasons for your rejection of the faith. I would speculate that you still have not received the evidence to overcome the hurdles placed before you.
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.
God did it throughout the OT and NT. But now He no longer does that, relying on individual men to figure it out for themselves?? I thought the New Covenant was supposed to be better, not being one where we CAN'T know the truth about God. Men disagree. Without an authority, we can KNOW little about God. Christ came to give us knowledge of the truth, not to confuse us with the opinions of men. Christ said He would be with His Church for all time. What does this mean to you? If the Spirit of Truth is with His Church (but not individually - as evidence clearly shows), then what IS Jesus talking about? How will the Gates of Hell not prevail against the Church?
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
As I explained, God GUARDS His DEPOSIT, the teaching of the Church, not the individual's life regarding sin. No one is impeccable (sinless). At what point would you say "OK, that Pope is 'acceptable'? Even one sin, you could then argue, would be enough to bring down the whole idea of the Church's infalliblity? If infallibility was tied to sin, then ANY sin would disprove it. But God Himself prevents even a poor Pope from disrupting the Deposit. Christ came to give US His teachings. He isn't about to let a human screw that up. Thus, we can be SURE that God's teachings, AS GIVEN, continue to come to us. God guides the Church from teaching falsehoods. The Apostles believed this in their writings. Is this based on the Apostles' superior ability or on God? Why does God stop protecting His Church from error???
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.
And so why did God allow Adolf Hitler to be born? I am not comparing the Reformation to Hitler, but you will get the point. Our ways are not God's ways...
But, according to my own theology, if the vast majority of the 775 million of us are lost because we aren't Catholic Christians
Oh, brother, well, your theology is incorrect. I never once said a person had to be Roman Catholic to be saved. I have made great effort to NOT say that. Only when we understand that the Church of Christ subsists within the Roman Catholic Church are we REQUIRED to join it. Beyond that, I can't answer for individuals. We believe that God saves ALL, Muslims, people in the Amazons, and even Protestants THROUGH the Body of Christ, the Church, which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church. God, in His infinite mercy, does not ABSOLUTELY require that a person enter the visible Church - to even be baptised. God is not bound by the Sacraments and can save whom He will. I would say that God placed me in the Catholic Church because I need all the help I can get!
What about saying mass only in Latin? What about eating meat on Fridays? What about encouraging Catholics to actually read the Bible?
None of those are dogma of the faith, the Deposit of the Faith given by the Apostles. The are called disciplines, which are given by the Church of a particular time. The Mass was first said in Aramaic or Greek, not Latin. The idea of fasting is from the OT, although I don't know when Friday became operative. Reading the Bible has always been encouraged, although during the polemics during the Reformation, some in the Church were afraid that people would come up with their own ideas and leave the Church. We read the Scriptures WITH the Church.
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.
Exactly. Which is why we don't rely on ourselves on the Deposit of Faith. It was given by God, and cannot be changed by our own ideas - Christianity is a revealed religion. Knowing that men make mistakes, WE don't make dogmatic declarations. How can we alone do that? And why should another person believe us if the "Spirit" speaks to them differently? I believe the Spirit speaks to us, but not in that way. There are too many people who make the claim and are wrong. Christ said that a Kingdom divided among itself must fall. Does the Spirit go against Christ's teachings and meaning of those teachings. Eucharist...
If I were to quote internally, such as from 2 Timothy 3:15-17, you have already been ordered to interpret that away
LOL!!!! I've been ordered? Achtung! Common sense should dictate that 2 Timothy is not referring to the NT writings. Pal clearly tells Timothy about the Scripture he read during his YOUTH! The NT was not written yet! At best, Paul is referring to the OT as Scriptures. But even here, you go too far in saying that these verses teach Bible alone. Look at Eph 4:11-13. They tell us of another way of reaching Christian perfection that has nothing to do with the Bible. This verse refutes Bible alone, within the Bible itself!
My qustion regarding Philemon is "what INTERNAL evidence do you have that this letter is God-breathed." This is what I mean that the Scripute is not self-attesting. We rely on OTHER PEOPLE to tell us that Philemon is Scripture.
Brother in Christ