Radio Replies Second Volume - The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church

Celledoor.com ^ | 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

[GonzoII]

The Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church

477. Rome's claim to interpretative authority, based on an obviously doctored text of the Bible can only appeal to those who have not heard the voice of the true Shepherd.

It used to be the Protestant tradition that the Catholic religion is opposed to the Bible. Now when a man has that fixed idea firmly embedded in his mind, he gets a shock when he hears the Bible quoted in favor of Catholicism. The stronger the texts are, the greater his shock. But some people never dream that they may have been laboring under a delusion. They refuse to entertain the idea that they have been wrong all their lives. The texts quoted seem to point to Catholicism all right, but to them it simply cannot be true. So they seek an excuse for not believing what they cannot refute. Every text which seems to favor Catholicism cannot mean what it says, but must obviously be "doctored." And they are so sure that they alone are truly guided by God that anyone impressed by the case for the Catholic religion must be regarded as not having heard the voice of the true Shepherd!

478. Other Churches claim to have given the Bible equal study, and claim equal value for their interpretation.

Since no non-Catholic Churches claim to be infallible, but admit their constant liability to error, they cannot even claim equal value for their interpretations. Moreover, apart from their divergence from the Catholic interpretation, they differ amongst themselves. That would not be, had they all equally arrived at the correct sense of the Bible. As a matter of fact, all practically nullify the claims of each as a reliable guide to the meaning of Scripture.

479. Protestantism and Catholicism are founded on the same basic principles, their differences being due to different interpretations of the Bible.

They are not founded on the same basic principles. In basic principles they are diametrically opposed. What is the basic principle of Protestantism? It is belief in what one thinks the Bible to mean. If a man thinks the Bible to support this or that doctrine, then it surely does so; for he cannot imagine that he might be wrong. He makes an act of faith in his own judgment. But the Catholic basic principle is very different. Instead of deciding for himself what is or is not the teaching of Christ, the Catholic is taught that teaching by the Catholic Church. He knows that his own judgment is quite likely to be wrong, but that the Catholic Church cannot be wrong. How different are the basic principles of the two religions can be judged from results. For the Protestant principle leads to endless diversity, while the Catholic principle leads to a world-wide and international unity.

480. But the Catholic believes in the Catholic Church because he thinks the Bible supports it.

That is not so. The Bible does support it, of course. But even if he never saw a Bible, the Catholic would have sufficient ground for his judgment. He knows that the Catholic priest does not preach merely his own opinions, as does the Protestant minister. He knows that his Church is not a particular sect, but a vast united universal Apostolic Church, whose history shows the allegiance of innumerable saints and martyrs. And such a Church is impossible to account for by merely human forces. It is God's work on the very face of it. Merely human institutions have always tended to fluctuation, change, and disintegration. Empires have crumbled. No human being can get even one nation to agree, say, on political matters. How could a mere man persuade over 400 millions drawn from all nations to agree on religious matters — millions who differ on almost every other conceivable subject? The Catholic has reasonable grounds for his acceptance of the Church as the teacher of mankind in religious matters; and he submits to her authoritative teaching in matters of faith and morals, rather than decide for himself what the Bible must mean.

481. My point is, since Protestantism and Catholicism differ as to what the Bible means, who is to say which is right?

On Protestant principles, there is no one who could do so. And that is the basic fallacy of Protestantism. It offers no certainty, and can offer no certainty, as to what God does really teach. Yet it is essential that in so grave a matter we should have certainty. The Catholic Church alone can give it.

482. If you quote the Bible, the Protestant will quote the Bible; so we are back to our point of view of the Bible, and there is no means of deciding the issue.

For a Catholic the issue does not depend on the Bible, even though the Bible does corroborate Catholicism. No Protestant can prove his beliefs from the Bible, or even that they ought to be proved from the Bible. You say that Protestants cannot prove their position, and that Catholics cannot prove theirs. It's a matter of conjecture and opinion. Protestants may be right or Catholics may be right. Neither has proof, and we must be content to do without proof. I admit that that is the logical result of the Protestant principles on which you argue; and for that reason Protestantism must end in uncertainty and doubt. That in itself should be enough to prove that it cannot be the religion of Christ.

483. How will the problem be solved?

Only by abandoning the Protestant principle of personal and private judgment, and accepting the doctrines taught clearly and definitely by the Catholic Church. She is the only tribunal in the world with authority from God to teach all nations, and endowed with infallibility in order that she may not lead men into error. And for two thousand years she has both fulfilled and proved her mission under the protection and guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Britain and Brits had been there before and had been Catholic before it broke free from the power of the Roman empire,”

Incorrect. 1) ancient Britain never broke free of the Roman Empire. The Romans left - much to the regret of the Britains who wanted and needed their protection. 2) the Angles, Saxons and Jutes then invaded.

“America was the first and only time that Catholicism was totally left out of the creation of a new nation,”

False. Great Britain was created first and was Protestant.

“...it bordered of course on a nation that had the more traditional Catholic background, Mexico.”

And Canada. And there had already been Catholic settlers even in the 13 colonies.

[ansel12]

I’m not talking about when the paper was signed, those people had been Catholic before they became Protestant, that was not the situation in America, and when I said the Roman empire, I was speaking of the Roman church that exists today.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I’m not talking about when the paper was signed, those people had been Catholic before they became Protestant,”

People, yes. Nation, no. Great Britain was never anything but a Protestant nation since it was founded by a Protestant monarch and Protestant parliament. You were wrong.

“that was not the situation in America, and when I said the Roman empire, I was speaking of the Roman church that exists today.”

Then you are wrong again. An empire is not a Church nor is a Church an empire. The Roman Empire and Catholic Church existed simultaneously but were under different leadership and had largely different concerns. Anyone who confuses the two - deliberately - is either ignorant or a bigot or both. There are no alternatives. You are proving that you need to read more history.

[Legatus]

What Ansel12 is apparently asserting is that the United States of America is the greatest nation in history because of it being Protestant from the beginning without Catholic influence.

Does that mean to ascertain exactly how great the US is we need to cut out any parts of the US that were previously colonized by Catholics and weed out any particular Catholics who contributed to the success of this nation? Not much left if we do that though.

Of course we have to take away French support of the Revolutionary War also. “Lafayette, we aren’t here”? DC would look pretty weird too.

[ansel12]

It would be nice to figure out how to get Catholics to become pro-American conservatives instead of them being liberals.

[vladimir998]

One way would be to stop infecting them with Protestantism since Protestantism is one of the causes of Liberalism.

[ansel12]

That is a nasty way to lash out, but the left exists because of the Catholic vote, for instance Obama.

The Protestant vote is about the only thing that conservatism has going for it, if we can convert Senator Kennedy’s Catholic illegals to Protestantism they will even start voting Republican.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“That is a nasty way to lash out, but the left exists because of the Catholic vote, for instance Obama.”

The Left exists because of the materialist ideals fostered by Protestantism. Now it infects even Catholics.

“The Protestant vote is about the only thing that conservatism has going for it, if we can convert Senator Kennedy’s Catholic illegals to Protestantism they will even start voting Republican.”

If they are illegal, they won’t be voting. What Protestants should do is defeat liberalism in their own ranks - too bad that they can’t. We struggle with that too.

[ansel12]

Sorry friend, but the Protestant vote is conservative, the Catholic vote has always been liberal, if anything, they are sometimes joining the Protestant vote in recent decades, mostly during a reelection after first voting against the Republican, but it is a start.

Even Protestant Hispanics are voting to the right of Catholics.

[Legatus]

It would be nice to figure out how to get Catholics to become Catholics.

I’m on my phone right now so typing is a bit of a nightmare for the next three hours or so.

[ansel12]

That goes for everyone, but there is a central command for Catholics and after a lifetime of looking at the situation, many people come to the conclusion that Catholics are voting the way that central command approves of, or else the last hundred years of American history would not look as it does and we surely would never have rewritten our immigration laws in 1965 to replace ourselves with exotic, third world foreigners.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Sorry friend, but the Protestant vote is conservative,”

Part of it is. Part of it is liberal.

“the Catholic vote has always been liberal,”

Uh, no.

“if anything, they are sometimes joining the Protestant vote in recent decades, mostly during a reelection after first voting against the Republican, but it is a start.”

Wrong again. It is not that the Catholic vote has joined the Protestant vote since the Protestant vote is not monolithic, but rather that the Democrats have become more liberal and lost some of their supporters while picking up others. These shifts happen all the time in politics.

“Even Protestant Hispanics are voting to the right of Catholics.”

Nope. Some are voting more conservatively than some Catholics. Others are not.

[ansel12]

The left almost never gets the Protestant vote, and the right almost never gets the Catholic vote.

Everyone knows that Catholic Hispanics vote almost 70% Democrat, but very few people know that Protestant Hispanics voted 56% Republican in 2004 and 48% Republican in 2008 (Catholics overall went 54% Obama), they are voting to the right of the overall Catholic vote.

And yes, the Catholic vote has always been pretty dependable for the left, in other words, if Catholics quit voting so pro-democrat they would not be winning those elections like 1940, and 1944, and 1948, and 1960 and so on, including Obama who did not win the Protestant vote of course. America would be a totally different nation, unimaginably different without the Democrat victories of those nightmarish and destructive years.

[vladimir998]

There are millions of Protestants who voted for Obama. To say, “The left almost never gets the Protestant vote, and the right almost never gets the Catholic vote” is incredibly ignorant. Neither the left nor the right gets all of the votes of all Catholics or Protestants. You do realize that, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/politics/07religion.html

[Legatus]

Maybe he means “good Protestants” don’t vote for democrats?

[ansel12]

No what he means is that the majority of a voting block goes for a particular party, not all of any voting block goes 100% and we shouldn’t have to waste time pointing that out.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the majority of Catholics voted like the majority of Protestants.

Conservative Catholics need to learn what is going with Catholics and liberalism, and fix it, it would have been nice if Obama had not been elected, at least that is my view.

[annalex]

The only Protestant nation ever created, was the greatest nation ever created.

Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, Renaissance Italy were all great nations much like the United States came to be politically, survived for much longer that the United States has so far done, and gave the world the cultural treasure beyond comparison to the post-reformation cultural decadence that passes for modern culture. All these were institutionally Catholic.

The United States is a great country. As one Catholic thinker, G.K. Chesterton, described it, we are a nation with a soul of the Church. It is true that it was founded and at the time populated largely by Protestants. In great part the American success is due to the fact that the founding fathers expressly avoided the peril of one Protestant sect dominating it, or even Protestatism as a whole dominating it. It is also true that over time America became more Catholic, and now we see disintegration of Protestatism and ascendance of Catholicism as the only consistent voice in defense of human dignity, right to life, right to practice religion publicly, and right to local governance. Funny how things turn around.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Wouldn’t it be nice if the majority of Catholics voted like the majority of Protestants.”

I would rather that Catholics vote as Catholics should. I do not always assume that that means however Protestants vote in whatever election.

“Conservative Catholics need to learn what is going with Catholics and liberalism, and fix it, it would have been nice if Obama had not been elected, at least that is my view.”

Conservative Catholics have always known what is going on Catholics and liberalism. And it can’t be “fixed”. If it were something that could just be fixed, then Protestants would have healed themselves of it ages ago since it came from them in the first place. This is a problem ingrained in culture and it would be “fixed”. It will take a spiritual movement that only God can make happen. All we can do is support that. We cannot make it happen.

[ansel12]

I would rather that Catholics vote as Catholics should.

I thought so, it is clear that politics and conservatism do not interest you much, America and conservatism do not rank high with you.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I thought so, it is clear that politics and conservatism do not interest you much, America and conservatism do not rank high with you.”

Actually they do. God and my soul and the souls of others rank first. America and conservatism are also important but I freely admit that I do not confuse either one with Protestantism. You apparently do. You seem to be confused about much - especially if you do not put God and souls first.