I have heard this argument many times and believe it is sincere. As a fallen away Catholic Christian (rejecting all religion and living as a very skeptical agnostic)when I began to yearn again for Christ in my life, I seriously considered and weighed my options.
This argument made sense and made my decision to return to the Church a difficult one.
But, I began to realize that when one honestly considered this argument, there was an extreme flaw in it.
Simply put, if I can accept the “first principles” and the doctrines of the early councils as having been declared by the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at what time do I also accept that the same Holy Spirit abandoned the Church?
It then made no sense to me. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, he promised that His Church would survive the gates of Hell. Why then and when did He withdraw the Holy Spirit?
That question drove me nuts and hampered my Christianity as I wanted Truth, not just religion.
I found my answer in the Truth that I believe the original post of this thread represents.
Luther did not foresee what he wrought. His canon is the one accepted by Protestants, unless I am unaware of different ones accepted by other denominations.
That would mean that all Protestants accepting as canon Luther’s choices of what to keep and what to discard is a de facto of his infallibility.
Thus that stumbling block was overcome for me and returning to the Church was the only thing that made sense.
#75 bump. Welcome home.
Does the New Testament describe a collection of buildings and rituals ruled by a hierarchy of sinners as being somehow automatically filled with the Holy Spirit, ever? No, it doesn’t.
To the extent that those within the Church are indwelled with the Holy Spirit, then the instiution is also by virtue of their presence. If not, then not. Surely a dispassionate reading of church history will reveal this to you, within the Roman Catholic Church or any other.
The “Protestant” Reformation did not arise in one place, it welled up across Europe and the British Isles over a period of decades, more or less. Do you suppose they all just decided randomly to risk their very lives to speak out for Christianity, or perhaps was it that the “magisterium” had gone seriously astray and various groups of Christians in various locales recognized that truth and were willing to become martyrs in order to set things aright?
I have Catholics in my acquaintance who have quietly and privately expressed gratitude for the Reformation. It was needed. Any student of history, church or secular, should be able to see this.
Your observation about the impossibility of a withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from the Church was the most important point made in this thread, and I thank you for representing the Catholic perspective so well.
I suppose if all of these FReepers were regular mass goers, taking in the abundance of Sacred Scripture that permeates the sacred liturgy and the liturgical year, there would be more communion and less bitter zeal.
As Chesterton put it, paraphrasing: there is one (solid) angle at which something might stand, but an infinitude of angles at which it will most certainly fall.