>those of us who are devoted to our Lady find increasing evidence in our lives that, even in the face of our doubts, God seems to pay special and remarkable attention to Mary’s intercession.<
The subjective are certainly Biblical and have their place, but they must be subject to the established objective authority. Many faiths say they see evidence in their lives such and such is true, and i may not contest that it is, but by itself does not validate it is right. Gal. 1:6-9
I'm not talking about history as supplement. I am talking about the Bible and the Church developing/forming together, under the same inspiring Spirit.
And I am a member of that community in which that sort of organic development occurred. It's a different attitude - in which Bible and Church/Tradition interpret each other.
As to SS and "formal sufficiency," I think ONE of the sticking points is "Nothing that cannot be proved thereby" (I think that's sort of like part of article 6 of the Articles of Religion, the one on the Anglican formulation of SS.) I think we would have to admit that the Marian Dogmata cannot meet that standard (though I'm open to correction from my side on that.)
I think I "get" the sola ecclesia notion. But it will lead to the disagreement which I will try to articulate later. For now I'd caution against too cut and dried a take on Thus, that a conclusion could be correct which does not conflate with what Rome has infallibly defined is held to be untenable. I would say it would have to flat out contradict beyond the power of Dominican or Jesuit to reconcile before it was ruled "untenable - get the lighter fluid, boys!"
That is I think that the understanding of, say nullus salus extra ecclesia has been developed and in a good way, leading (among other things) to the understanding of Church articulated in Dominus Iesus. Don't forget, to put it in what I hope is a funny, not offensive, way, "If you're baptized, you're a Catholic, just a really bad catholic."
That is, after centuries of prayer and thought, we refined our concept of Church so that we were clear that the membership was a lot larger than those with pledge cards. And, I think, this was a good development for ecclesiology in thought alone and helps to understand the meaning of all the divisions.
1. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible?Br> I answer that a person believes the RCC to be infallible by a gift from God. However that gift is supported among persons of a more scholarly bent, by the study of Church history.
2. Upon what basis did the RCC infallibly declare itself infallible?
The promises we understand God to have given to the Church and the bold declaration in what I will call an "encyclical" from the Jerusalem council, where they say, "It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us ...."
I hope it is unnecessary to remind you that infallibility is not applied to the persons involved in every situation. A scoundrel can be pope, and even a saintly pope can err when he gives an opinion under everyday circumstances.
3. To what degree does unanimous consent of the Father have to be to in order to be unanimous?
I hope you appreciate that that is a funny question. "How unanimous is unanimous?" I suspect you are talking about the so-called "consensus patrum," right?
I blush to say I have no clue. I'll put that one in the hopper and hope I get to it before the angel of death gets to me.
4. Can Catholics know for sure they are interpreting correctly the infallibly defined teachings of the Catholic church?
Hail no! (off the cuff answer.) Again. I'm going to try to address that later. For now I'll say that there are a whole lot of people to whom theology holds no attraction. Some of them may be very great saints, while some very fine theologians may need to spend right much time in purgatory.
5. To what degree do Catholics disagree with their churches teaching, and where is this allowed, how does this compare with evang. Prots in general?
Isn't that a sociological question? I think there's a lot of misunderstanding and some outright disagreement
As to "allowed": I don't know if the current vetting of some "religious" womens' orders gets any air-time in Protestant consciousness. For decades there have been some wild and crazy womens' orders. Recently a Dominican sister was photographed serving as an escort at an abortion clinic! And, on a less gawdawful level, there was some interesting but finally ruled out-of-bounds thinking on the Eucharist coming from a number of places a few decades ago.
And this ruling out of bounds thing is funny. There's a notion called "fundamental option," which (caricature alert) teaches that if you really intend your actions to proceed from a love of God and to serve Him and your neighbor, then go ahead and use contraception.
This is explicitly dissed in Veritatis Splendor[VS]. But I knew a deacon, who has shuffled off the mortal coil, who taught it in what you might call "enquirer's class," after VS was promulgated. Now I'd bet this guy never read VS and that he wouldn't have understood half of it if he did. AND I bet he couldn't have cared less if he DID understand it.
A stake was not put up in our churchyard.
I'll skip #6 as already answered by competent authority. ;-)
On to your next.
All my rejection of Ps 65:2 was was to show IT was incompetent to prove what it was sent out to prove. I did not prove the contrary nor claim to prove the contrary. There may be other texts, but it's not MY job to bring them up, is it? Don't I hold up my side if I just shoot 'em down as you present them?
But to outline the positive: Our side says that since we are told to make prayers and supplications and to give thanks for all men, intercessory prayer is licit. Further, our side says that it's okay to ask for intercessory prayers. AND our side says that the "Dead" are not dead and can, in the Spirit which unites us, "hear" our prayers. To pray to a saint is to ask for his intercession. Those, I think, are the propositions to be questioned.
and as this is such a fundamental holy practice, surely the Holy Spirit would not fail to provide at least one example of praying to a departed saint,br>In my view that "surely"presupposes that the sola Scriptura argument has been settled. We would say that in centuries of practice affirmed by saints and popes, the Holy Spirit has provided many examples.
And much of the rest of that post depends on the same assumption. We parted company as we left the starting gate.
You can argue better than the 1Kg2:1-25) argument. I nowhere said or implied that the mothers of kings in the OT had the graces of Mary. Those fallen kings gave their fallen mothers such honor as they could. Our King gives His immaculate mother such honor as He can. I think the analogy holds, within our system, and that we can therefore reasonably ask for Mary's intercession, trusting that she will only ask what accords with Jesus' will.
Your side always seems to act as if the Mt 12:50 quote were a new and telling blow against our side. We respond, who ever has done the will of the Father as well as Mary who said,"Thy will be done," when she had skin in the game.
And we do not say she is essentially different from us, just different in degree.
and the only way to reconcile the Bible with itself is the Trinity,
Tell it to NoGrayZone. I'll watch.
I'm watching, but not carefully, the Arminian/Calvinist debate and I'm not hearing, "We agree on the important stuff." YMMV, but I'm hearing one side telling the other that they dishonor God's sovereignty and are proud, and so forth.
And the final, I'll just say I did not adduce my experience as any kind of proof, but as supporting evidence to what must look elsewhere for proof.
Here's what I think: We trust God. We do not, will not, and, in a sense, cannot look to our own interpretation of Scripture to protect us against the Church. To trust the magisterium, to affirm the infallibility of the Pope, is to jump off the cliff and trust that God will catch you.
I'm not a complete fool. I know of scandalous popes. I know of scads of clergyd00ds, both Catholic and otherwise, who are not especially deserving of confidence. I mentioned one.
I hear that the Talmud says that God chose to give the Law on Sinai rather than, say, Shasta, Everest, Annapurna, The Matterhorn, or Mnt Blanc BECAUSE Sinai isn't much of a mountain. There is no question that the glopryof the Torah comes from itself and from God. The mountain has nothing to do with it. Many popes are quite amazing. I simply cannot believe how wonderful it is to read the writings of John Paul the Great. But in the aggregate, it is not the Pope qua guy that I am taken with. It is the challenge of trusting God to speak through Popes, and to protect the Church from error.
To go at it from another direction, I do not go to Mass as often as I can to learn some truth about God and the gospel. I do not say my daily prayers with that in mind either.
Now I am some sort of very inadequate and poorly trained theologian, but a bad theologian is still a theologian. I have that kind of mind and I find my enjoyment there.
Not everyone has that call. And I do not think that knowing a lot of theology is critical to sanctity, though it MAY help.
Blessed Margaret of Castello is an example to us Dominicans and, we think, to all, that intellectual understanding of God is nothing compared to knowing Him and living in His company.
I study, yes, to know what good thinkers have thought. And I think my thinking spurs me to praise God more. But my prayers and attendance and Mass are about being with God "on purpose" rather than knowing about Him, even knowing what the Bible says about Him.
We read the Bible, not only to learn, but to communicate with Him. Lectio Divina is a kind of prayer for us, one I ought to practice more often, though I recently had a wonderful time with Ephsians.
What am I saying? I won't know until I've said it a way that seems right to me.
Put it this way, maybe: To a lot of people I would say, "Don't worry about transubstantiation. Just let me tell you that when you go to Mass, Jesus is there, there for you. And when you go to adoration, He is there. Enjoy being with Him. Offer Him your heart, your life.
If you WANT to talk Eucharistic theology, fine. But the main thing, He is here, and HE is here because He loves you.
Proclaiming the good news is a happy duty of the Church. And such proclamation requires theology in the background. But in the foreground is one's life with Jesus.
So our primary focus is not this or that teaching. Our primary focus is Jesus. And similarly my confidence in the Church is not based on an argument. It is based on Jesus.
This is not some pious or subjective argument. It is rather an attempt to say why the authority of the Church is not the first thing in my mind.
Long enough for ya?