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
I agree that we must obey our King, but I am just less willing to obey fallible men. I still don't understand why, if only the Catholic tradition is true, this is not in the Bible. I do not declare that any tradition must be wrong because it is not in the Bible, but in order to believe in it I must put my trust in men I do not know. The authority of these (non-Biblical) men is a self-claimed authority.
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.
Forgive me if I've already asked this, but the Church has never taught error? Ever? What about the earlier discussion of indulgences? I thought I remembered many Catholics backing away from that one. Even in the Pope's recent pronouncement on homosexuality, he allows latent existing homosexual priests to remain in good standing. Would the apostles have approved of this?
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?
Well, in the interests of fairness I will concede to you that Jesus was at the Last Supper. See, we Protestants can be reasonable! :) However, after that it all goes back to interpretation. Following a practice and determining its meaning are two different things. Obviously we both believe Baptism is very important, but for totally different reasons.
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?
This goes back to "what is the Church"? You explained to me before that "THE CHURCH" does not equal "The Roman Catholic Church". Therefore, other than the RCC is also within "THE CHURCH". You can't admit that and then say that others are also part of the CHURCH, as long as they agree with RCC teaching. That would wipe out the whole point. Either you claim that the RCC is the only way to God, or you allow for differences. Our side does allow for some differences, just not on the core, defining beliefs of the faith. Eschatology is a perfect example. I take no offense at my Protestant brother who wrongly believes in post-trib. :) These things just aren't essential to the faith as a whole. You, OTOH, are bound to follow the Church teaching on this, are you not?
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.
It depends on how you define "Protestant". If you say that Protestant is anything not Catholic, then sure, there are plenty of conflicting views out there. The Branch Davidians were not Catholic, but they were certainly not part of my family of churches either. Among Bible believing churches, yes, there are some differences, but at the core there is basic unity.
You mentioned infant baptism as a possible example of disunity at a core level. I am unaware of any Protestant church that considers this a "core" issue in its statement of faith. (I could be wrong.) Core issues are things like the identity of Christ, the trinity, method of salvation, reality of sin, need for forgiveness, existence of heaven and hell, inerrancy of the Bible, etc. I just don't see there being a million different views on these types of issues among Bible believing churches.
We have more differences than you because we do not automatically submit to the direction of fallible men. You do submit because you believe these men have been specially blessed with power and wisdom, etc. That's fine. That is faith. I also believe the Spirit lives in me and leads me. I have not yet been led to follow men before God's word.
God bless.