You believed there was a God. You searched. You found Catholicism, you liked it, and you accepted their teachings. You accepted that the Church interprets scripture. You were open to the truth, wherever you found it, wherever God led you. Your points of convergence ended in the Catholic Church. Based on God's leadership, you believe that you are right in your faith and that other faiths contain error.
I believed there was a God. I searched. I found a Bible-based faith, I liked it, and I accepted its teachings. I accepted that the Bible interprets itself. I was open to the truth, wherever I found it, wherever God led me. My points of convergence ended in a Bible-based faith. Based on God's leadership, I believe that my faith is right and that other faiths contain error.
Again, don't confuse infallibility with impeccability. Popes sin. But the doctrines that they teach, the Gospel, cannot be in error, because they are guided by the Spirit of Truth. Christ will not allow His Church to teach error.
This is a brand new teaching for me, so thank you. In the normal course of life, I have heard it said a hundred times by lay Catholics, something to the effect that "the Pope is infallible and cannot sin". (I had to look up "impeccable" to put your use into context, and now I see what you mean.) Just to be sure, are you saying that whenever we talk about "papal infallibility" we are only talking about the truth of the message, and it has nothing to do with the man himself?
You seem to be trusting your own interpretations above and beyond what the Church has taught for 2000 years on particular subjects. Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today? See where private interpretation leads you? You place your trust in yourself. The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves.
I claim no authority on any of my beliefs because I say so. You believe the Spirit leads you to the truth through the Church, and I believe the Spirit leads me to the truth through the Bible. I do make interpretations, and they are in part based on what other men I trust have thought before me. My ultimate test is always whether the teaching is Biblical and in context. Yes, I do believe the Spirit knows the extent of my spiritual gift of intellect, uses it, and leads me to understanding.
Why are you right and the Church has been wrong for so long? So the Christians of pre-100 AD who believed that the Eucharist was the REAL presence of Christ were wrong, all the way up to today?
Well, IN THE ONLY SENSE THAT LONG-TERM ERROR IS POSSIBLE, how long have the Muslims been wrong?
The Spirit guides the Church on such matters, not ourselves. We are wounded characters and cannot be relied upon to agree on doctrine. Doesn't thousands of denominations make this clear?
Jo, that is a flat out distortion and you know it. Protestants are not splintered into thousands of different directions. Do you really think this? The core principles are fairly simple and substantially universal. We claim no ownership of or responsibility for such other faiths as Mormonism or JWs. That isn't us.
The Apostles were given special protection to not teach error, not me. By their conveyance of the Holy Spirit upon their successors through the laying on of hands, they continued Apostolic Succession, the guarantee that Christ's doctrine would not be corrupted. The Church teaches what was handed down, not what they make up.
(I did not mean to imply that I thought you were declaring anything on your own authority.) Does the Church really only teach what was handed down to them from predecessors, or does it install new teachings? I thought that Church history is filled with new teachings, even if they are based on what was handed down they are still new. There is nothing wrong with this, new issues in modern life present themselves and the Pope gives a teaching.
My point is that Popes are still men. You must have a private list of "favorite" Popes who did things you agree with. You must also have a list of least "favorite" Popes who did not. Whatever the Pope says is what the Church adopts and teaches. There's no vote as far as I know. Do you hold that Christ's doctrine has never been corrupted under any Pope, as you said?
When I hear a priest or bishop who teaches heterodoxy, or is lax in his morals, I pray for them. I pray for those who hear their incorrect teachings or witness their un-Christ-like life.
So as do I for mine own, amen. I think that is the perfect approach to take.
I believe, in the end, it comes down to authority. That is the final question. It is not a matter of "liking" the Catholic Church's teachings. It is that I believe that they ALONE had a legitimate claim to authoritatively teach the Gospel. Christ sent out particular men to preach and teach - those who were His witnesses. I saw this Apostolic Succession as the source of authority within the Church, protected by God. Thus, I submit my obedience to their interpretations on Scripture and so forth.
I don't think it is a matter of finding a church who YOU agree with. I think it is a matter of finding a church that has been given authority from God. If we find such a church, if we say that Christ is our King, must we not obey our King and follow where He leads us and follow those whom He had left in His charge? Consider the parables of the ruler/master who go away - and a slave is left in charge. This is representative of the Church's leadership role.
Just to be sure, are you saying that whenever we talk about "papal infallibility" we are only talking about the truth of the message, and it has nothing to do with the man himself?
Exactly. Benedict, the Pope, is certainly a holy man. But his decisions on faith and morals are binding on us NOT because of his superior wisdom or sinlessness, but because the Holy Spirit is specifically protecting Him. Christ promised that the Church cannot teach error on matters of doctrine. Over and over, the Church itself notes that it is not to teach anything "new", but only what has been handed down from the Apostles. Everything of consequence taught by the Church is found at least implicitly in the Scriptures as interpreted by Tradition. I have already given "intercessionary prayers of the physically dead saints" as an example of a teaching found in Scripture implicitly. The current Pope is God's instrument of visible unity for the Church. It is through him, if God finds it necessary, that God speaks to the rest of the Church, for example, on his just released encyclical on Love.
I do make interpretations, and they are in part based on what other men I trust have thought before me
We do as well, as long as we don't make interpretations against what the infallible Church teaches. This is a sign of our humility and obedience to God - that we submit to His Church.
My ultimate test is always whether the teaching is Biblical and in context.
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is Biblical, is it not? Do you think that the Christians writings in 100 AD are following a practice that is not found in Scriptures? It comes back to authority, doesn't it? Catholics follow the teachings passed down from the Apostles. That is what faith is.
Well, IN THE ONLY SENSE THAT LONG-TERM ERROR IS POSSIBLE, how long have the Muslims been wrong?
Does not the Scriptures say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Does the Scriptures say that Christ would guide and protect His Church with the Spirit of Truth? If we believe that the Church is NOT from God, then why do we believe that the Scriptures that we call the New Testament are even from God? Why not the Koran, then? As to long-term error... Satan still exists as well... It seems amazing to me that Christ would allow such a fundamental error into His Church - we call the Eucharist the source of Christian life! If the Spirit is not guiding the Church, our faith is in vain.
Jo, that is a flat out distortion and you know it. Protestants are not splintered into thousands of different directions. Do you really think this? The core principles are fairly simple and substantially universal.
There are dozens of Baptist groups, are there not? They all hold to different teachings on issues. There is no unity in Protestantism. Even on core issues, what authority beyond oneself holds a person to follow that supposed "core" issue? People cannot even agree on WHAT IS a core issue! While some may say "infant baptism" is a core issue, others will say "no, it isn't". It is clear that there is a broad spectrum of beliefs on such important issues on how one is saved, the sacraments, authority, sanctification, and so forth. I do not know a lot about Protestantism's various beliefs. I do know, from my experience here, that it is quite broad - officially. While some Catholics appear to hold some interesting points of view, this is because they don't know their faith. There is only one Catholic belief on a subject. Protestantism doesn't have that unity, except on a few areas. Can the Spirit of Truth REALLY be leading ALL of these people - sometimes in diametrically opposed directions? Are works of love necessary for salvation? Etc.
Does the Church really only teach what was handed down to them from predecessors, or does it install new teachings?
The Church doesn't teach anything "new". It DEFINES something for everyone to believe. But this is only in an official capacity. Everything that the Church defines is implicitly found in the Scriptures as interpreted by Apostolic Tradition. For example...Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father. This was believed by the "whole" Church "all" the time "everywhere" BEFORE it was officially defined at Nicea in 325 AD. The Church, as a result of heretics, is forced to plumb the depths of the Deposit of Faith and find out "what DO we believe on this matter?" After deliberation and the Holy Spirit, they Define something - "this is our official belief, not that". Thus, there is nothing "new", just items of faith that are "officially defined". The belief was already there.
Whatever the Pope says is what the Church adopts and teaches. There's no vote as far as I know. Do you hold that Christ's doctrine has never been corrupted under any Pope, as you said?
Only in his official capacity, not as a private theologian, or discussing politics. Normally, the Pope makes such declarations in union with the rest of the Bishops, although he does have the power to do so separately. I hold that the pope has not corrupted official Church teachings. Of course there were sinful popes and popes who made poor political decisions, even religious decisions.
Brother in Christ