Posted on 11/18/2002 8:34:02 AM PST by pseudo-justin
Church Is Still Attracting Converts
By PAUL LIKOUDIS
A personal note: The phone rang the other day and the gentleman on the other end identified himself as Jim Anderson from the Coming Home Network. He said he had a message from an old high school friend. Who might that be, I asked, and he gave the name: Dion Berlowitz.
Anderson told me the Coming Home Network, with which I was not familiar, helped Protestants come into the Church, and that Dion was on his way in.
I hadn’t heard from Dion in more than a decade, even though we were best friends at Williamsville South High School, outside Buffalo, sharing several interests, including cartooning and comic books. Raised Jewish, Dion became a born-again Christian in his junior year of high school as his parents’ marriage broke up, and spent hours, days, weeks, and months trying to convert me into a Bible-believing Christian.
In 1971, Dion went on to the University of Buffalo to study literature and I went on to Eisenhower College to study history, and our paths never crossed again until a call out of the blue came from him around 1990, when he told me he was a Presbyterian. We have had no further contact since, though I suspect and hope that will change.
In this initial conversation, Anderson told me that so far, this year, the Coming Home Network has helped 94 Protestant ministers of various denominations, along with many other Protestants, come into the Church. Some, like Dion, are on their way in. This is the largest annual crop since the CHNetwork was founded nine years ago.
Here, in a year in which the Catholic Church in the United States and around the world has been wracked by scandals, we do have good news indeed.
+ + +
What would prompt a Protestant, especially a minister with a wife and family, to leave his tradition and often his livelihood to come into the Catholic Church, especially when there are so many broken-hearted Catholics embarrassed by the past ten months of sordid revelations involving clerical sexual abuse, bishops’ resignations, episcopal cover-ups and pay-outs? Not to mention the ongoing abuse of authority by bishops to hammer the lay faithful who object to dissidents and heretics speaking in parishes and education conferences.
"For Protestants," says Jim Anderson, "the scandals are a non-issue. Among the hundreds of people I have talked to who are thinking of coming into the Church, the scandals just aren’t an issue. Of all the people who have contacted me, only three or four have mentioned them, and that was only at my prompting.
"To a man, these men are intellectually convinced that the Church is a divine institution established by Christ, and bishops are only human — and, besides, they say, ‘These things are going on in our own denominations — only in our denomination they are not being addressed.’
"They see this as the Holy Spirit cleaning house. The judgment of the Lord begins with the family of God. They view the present scandals as a terrible tragedy; they want justice like everybody else. But as far as the truth of the Catholic faith is concerned, it is a non-issue. It’s sin; it needs to be addressed. And that’s it.
"These men," he continued, "are educated people. Most have master of divinity degrees and doctorates. They are aware of the problems, but once their hearts are converted and they see the Church as Jesus Christ’s, they know Christ will keep His promise. They have experienced troubles in their own denominations, but they know that when they are in the Church, God will prevail."
On average — based on the first ten months of this year — Anderson hears from a Protestant minister every three days who has made the decision to become Catholic.
Most, he says, are drawn to the Church for two reasons. Either they have come to understand the dead end to which the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura leads, and they want to settle, in their own minds, the issue of authority in the Church; or they have been led to the Church by its doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and they want to receive Jesus.
What many Protestants are coming to understand, even at a time when many Catholics and non-Catholics lament the apparent breakdown of authority in the Church, Anderson explained, is that the Church’s authority "is set by God."
"Those who take their faith and Scripture and God seriously," he said, "see the Catholic Church as being the answer to the chaos of the Protestant condition: Sola scriptura is a dead end, is unhistorical and unworkable. They understand this and so they have a crisis of faith and they enter the Catholic Church. And this is occurring across the Protestant spectrum. A lot of people contacting the Coming Home Network are ‘higher church’ Episcopalians or Lutherans, but we do get calls also from ‘low-end’ Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and Assembly of God ministers.
"To speak, as some Catholics do, about a ‘crisis of authority’ in the Church doesn’t make a lot of sense," Anderson said. "There is a ‘crisis of obedience to authority,’ but that has always been the case, just as there has always been a ‘crisis of obedience to the authority of God’ on the part of many men and women. The authority is there, and it is working; it is just not obeyed."
The Coming Home Support Network
The Coming Home Network was founded in 1993 out of the experiences of several Protestant clergy and their spouses. Upon leaving their pastorates to enter the Catholic Church, these clergy and their families discovered they were not alone. To help others come into the Church — and to deal with some of the tremendous personal and professional obstacles they faced — they began the organization as a support network.
Catholics, Anderson suggested, should understand some of the challenges these ministers face once they have made the intellectual decision to "cross over" to Rome.
"They go through tremendous struggles. They think, ‘I’m losing my friends, my family, my community, my church, and people think I’m crazy and I’m apostatizing from Christianity.’ Often the most serious conflict is with spouses, who not only have to deal with the change of religion, but have practical problems as well, such as, ‘What about me and the children?’ ‘How are we going to survive?’ ‘What will our friends think?’ ‘Have I been following the wrong religion all my life?’
"Most of these people have M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees, and so they are not employable in the world. It’s a difficult decision for these men to give up their work, their careers, and their livelihoods. Nevertheless, 94 this year have entered, or are on their way into, the Church."
One former minister, Anderson recalled, gave up his role as a prominent, prestigious minister for his community to work as a greeter at WalMart. For him, the blessing of being able to receive the Eucharist more than compensated for what he had to give up.
Anderson is well-prepared for his work helping Protestants come into the Church. Reared as a Methodist, the 47-year-old Anderson became a Lutheran at 19. As a history major specializing in medieval Europe at Ohio University in Athens, he knew he was on his way into the Church.
Three years after graduating, he entered evangelical Ashland Seminary in 1980, interested in pursuing studies in ecumenical dialog. In his freshman year, he made the decision to join the Catholic Church, and on July 25, 1981, the Feast of St. James, he was confirmed. His wife, Lynn, who entered the Church in 1983, now teaches in a Catholic school.
Contrary to popular stereotypes, he said, the biggest roadblocks would-be converts confront are not such "hot-button" issues as contraception, papal infallibility, or women’s rights, but the Church’s doctrines concerning Mary.
But another obstacle, he said, is "liturgical craziness."
Many Protestants, he said, "are scandalized by the liturgical craziness. They try to get around it by seeking out a Byzantine rite, or seeking out orthodox parishes. And usually, if they come into the Church, having been good Protestants, they have church-hopped enough to have found a parish where they don’t have to deal with abuses."
But, he added, many look beyond the abuses, because "they are attracted to Christ in the liturgy. For a lot of the converts, there are many who have intellectually convinced themselves already that they must join the Church before they ever attended Mass. And when they finally start going to Mass, often there is a culture shock, especially if they come from a small, intimate, loving Baptist church, and go into a parish of 2,000 people who aren’t particularly friendly. So there is this bit of culture shock — and that doesn’t include the shock of liturgy."
Asked to name the leading intellectual sources Protestants are reading to find their way into the Church, Anderson named familiar names.
"The intellectual sources are, certainly, Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Bishop Fulton Sheen, Scott Hahn, and Catholic Answers.
"But most often, it is the fathers of the Church. When Protestant ministers encounter the fathers, they realize they were lied to and betrayed, because they were taught the Protestant Reformation cleansed Christianity of the barnacles on the Barque of Peter and the Reformers recovered ancient Christianity. Then they go back and read the apostolic fathers, especially Ignatius of Antioch who is preaching the Real Presence, the authority of bishops, and all these many Catholic things, and the conclusion is the words of Jesus, who says: ‘I will be with you always.’
"Either Jesus kept His promise, or the Church went to Hell in a hand basket after the death of St. John.
"When they start studying the early Church fathers, they are blown out of the water."
Solid Apologetics
The Coming Home Network’s executive director is former Presbyterian minister Marcus Grodi, who, captured the feeling and beliefs of many fellow Protestants who came into the Church in his book, Journeys Home (Queenship Publishing 1997).
"[T]he biggest thing that opened my heart to the truth of the Catholic faith was not all the apologetic arguments that convinced me of the trustworthiness of Catholic truth, but the realization that the Catholic Church, with all of her saints and sinners, was exactly what Christ had promised.
"The majority of complaints against the Catholic Church over the centuries have been aimed at the decisions and actions of bad Popes, or immoral clergy, or ignorant laity, or corrupt Catholic nobility, and the correct answer to this is, ‘But, of course! The Church is made up of wheat and tares, from the bottom to the top, sinners in need of grace! This is no reason to leave and form a new church, for any church made up of human beings is made up of sinners.’
"All true conversions to the Catholic faith from any other starting point carry with them complications, primarily because this conversion must be rooted in and thereby an extension of one’s conversion and surrender to Christ. If becoming a Catholic does not involve this, I don’t believe it is a true conversion. It might be a change of convenience or even possibly for some sort of personal gain or aggrandizement.
"But only when one recognizes or painfully discovers that to be fully a follower of Jesus Christ, and thereby have the full potential of growing in union with Him, one must also be in union with the Church He established in and through His Apostles, can one be truly converted.
"These conversions by definition must involve some extent of leaving behind and rejecting part of what a person once held very dear. Some things can be joyfully brought along, others can be cautiously tolerated, but yet there are ideas, practices, and sometimes even relationships which must be severed.
"It of course never means that we cease to love those we may need to leave behind, or who choose to turn their backs on us. In fact, we are called all the more to shower our now confused or indignant friends and family with the all-forgiving, all-accepting love of Christ. However, we must not let the emotional trajectories of our loving glances turn our attention off of the fullness of truth found only in union with the Catholic Church."
For more information about the Coming Home Network, go to its web site, www.chnetwork.org, or call 740-450-1175.
Now how do you know two things:1. The Holy Spirit is teaching the Universal Church X.
2. The Universal Church is receiving without deception the Holy Spirit's infallible teaching that X.
Unless there are clear conditions which, if satisfied, give me the knowledge that 1 and 2 are true, what difference does it make that the Holy Spirit is teaching X?
What difference does it make that the Holy Spirit is teaching that X to the Universal Church unless we can know that the Holy Spirit is teaching X to the Universal Church?
Even if the Holy Spirit's teaching is to, and so, ultimately, through the Church, any individual Christian can (and should) confirm that teaching with GOD, Himself, per ...
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.In this very way, many have found that GOD's Word to the Church, delivered through the action of the Holy Spirit, has nonetheless been corrupted (by various degrees) by the very church authorities (with which they have had association) who were given the responsibility of faithfully delivering the Word of GOD to His people.
Fortunately for these, God is faithful to direct them to church leadership which more faithfully delivers His Word.
The Bereans,I have learned from nonCatholics,were in great favor because they pored over scripture,testing everything against it. That is what I do.This is good. This, plus earnest prayer to God for understanding of what you read, will bring you into a fuller and fuller truth.
So while there is much that Paul has written that conforms to scripture, some simply does not.
It's strange that you should say this, because the Catholic Church affirms the writings of Paul in the New Testament as scripture.
But, that aside, ... what is there, in your opinion, which Paul has written which does not conform to scripture ?
Furthermore,I do not think you see fully what I am saying. Let me put it this way. You hold:
All post-Apostolic Christians are always fallible.
and you also hold, I take it:
I am a post-Apostolic Christian Now, the judgment you make, "I have checked the word of God and this pastor is faithfuly delivering it" is therefore fallible. You might very well be hearing something that really is not God's word even though you think it is, and even though you think the Holy Spirit has confirmed it.By the way, I think you also hold the following too. I will draw the implications of the affirming that all post-Apostolic Christians are fallible:
Some post-apostolic Christians decided upon the table of contents for my bible.Therfore, your table of contents might have certain erros in it.
some post-Apostolic Christians say that the apocrypha is not God's word. Therfore, the apocryphal texts might be God's word too.
some post apostolic Christians say that baptim is necessary for salvation.Therefore, baptism might not be necessary.
some post-apostolic Christians say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.Therefore, baptism might be necessary.
Jones says that Scripture says X. Therefore, Scripture might not really say X.
Bob says scripture does not say X. Therefore, Scripture might really say X.
Telling me that you are going to check the word of God for yourself does not help you, since you too are fallible, and it certainly does not help anyone else, for we are all fallible too, fallibly checking what each other says and fallibly coming to different conclusions. We might all be wrong about even very basic things. How is the WHOLE CHURCH supposed to get out of this quagmire? This is precisley the problem mentioned in the article that starts this off. Protestantism, because it affirms that all post-apostolic Christians are always fallible, directly attacks the very foundations of Christianity.
To really see the problem, I want you to draw a big circle on a piece of paper. Label that circle FALLIBLE. Then put in the circle, first, all the Christians after the apostles, then the table of contents in your Bible, then the Creeds drawn up by the councils, then all your bible commentaries, bible studies (from all times), bible dictionaries, theology books, confessions of faith, sunday school lessons, and all the beliefs you, your momma, your daddy, your pastors, your fellow Christians have (whether they agree with you or not on a certain point) because all of it is merely the work or belief of post-apostolic Christians.
Why in the world would you say that? You seem to think the follwing:
There was unanaimous consent of the Fathers on a certain point (or any point)only if there is one place, or text, written by the Fathers themselves,where all the views of the Fathers are drawn up.
But this is just simply a false assumption. The Fathers wrote at different times and places on different texts, in different genres;not just commentaries but homilies,treatises, etc. DO you think the Fathers of Trent did not realize that? The whole vast body of Patristic literature needs to be considered. I receive the truth about the unanimous consent of the Fathers in any one of a number of ways: first by reading as much of them as I can, second, by leaning on the Church's teaching office, which does not pronounce on something until the Fathers have been reviewed, and finally in other places where alot of their unanimous opinions have already been gathered, codified and systematically presented. There is a cooperative division of labor among all the people who contribute to the Chruch's teaching office (despite the false image of top-down unilateral, papal deliverances) See, for one example, Ludwig Ott's "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" for a primer text. Or go to the Catholic answers website and see their pieces that present the unanimous opinions of the Fathers, in excerpt form. Maybe you better not, they were all in unanimous consent on the things the Catholic Church teaches.
In all fairness, perhaps you are concerned that the decree from Trent forbids you from holding what is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and yet you have no easy way of knowing what the unanaimous consent of the Fathers was on a point. But you do, it is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was composed after the largest consultation of Bishops and theologians of any text in the history of Christianity. And yes, the composers of the Catechism knew about this very decreee from Trent (which has been reaffirmed by Pope Leo XII and, I think, more Popes) and were concerned not to put forward anything contray to the unaimous consent of the Fathers.
If you are interested in a Patristic Commentary on Scripture that attempts to put together in one place some, and only some, of what they thought on particular passages, I can refer you to some titles.
Romans3:10 speaks of men..was Jesus fully a man ?
From the mouth of Jesus
Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God
I see you and raise the stakes
This is the word of God speaking to men that THINK they are "good" He confronts you (and me)with these words
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Rom 3:13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:
Rom 3:14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:
Rom 3:15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:
Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:
Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
There you have it !God speaks to you and tells you what you do not choose to hear..Everyone needs a savior..Everyone
1. (As an example) You say that the bread of the eucharist becomes Jesus' actual body.
2. Prove it. Who said so?
The only answer is to place your ultimate trust only in God ... to take the position ... no matter what any man or woman may tell me ... if GOD tells me something different, then I believe GOD.And how do I approach believing God ?
Well, I start out by believing those who have demonstrated a closeness to God. In this case, these would be, primarily, the Old Testament patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles of JESUS. These are they who walked with God, and, whose walk with God is recorded in scripture. Their walk is not a perfect one, ..., but one which is, undeniably, affected by their relationship to God.
These set the standard, ... and their writings are thode which (appropriately) compose our scriptures.
If I place my trust in any men, it is these.
All those which come after MUST harmonize with these.
To the extent that they don't, they lose some degree of my trust.
Finally, in their writings, these men talked of relationship with God ... who God is ... what He is like ... what He desires from us ... how to draw close to Him ... and to petition Him for provision ... wisdom ... forgiveness ... salvation.
I have followed the teachings of these men ... I have drawn close to God ... I have sought His will for my life ... I have petitioned Him for His provision ... for His wisdom, ... for His forgiveness ... for His salvation.
I have experienced His love. I have witnessed His power. I live by His provision. I negotiate this life by His wisdom. I have received His forgiveness and His salvation. The men who walked with Him are the standard. All others MUST reconcile to them.
No,not at all.I don't ignore Jesus speaking to others,in fact,I pay close attention to what He says to others and to specfics about those "others",to whom He says things.
Why in the world would you say that? You seem to think the follwing:
There was unanaimous consent of the Fathers on a certain point (or any point)only if there is one place, or text, written by the Fathers themselves,where all the views of the Fathers are drawn up.
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished with the penalties by law established."
"never (intended) to be at any time published." Never published. Exists nowhere.
You must rely on what some men tell you. You would be better off not reading the Bible at all. Confine yourself to the writings and words of a bunch of men who will tell you what to think.
It is not possible in any way to prove such a thing as "Unanimous Consent Of The Fathers"..
==============================
Or go to the Catholic answers website and see their pieces that present the unanimous opinions of the Fathers, in excerpt form. Maybe you better not, they were all in unanimous consent on the things the Catholic Church teaches.
Catholic Answers has given too many incorrect answers to be considered a consistently reliable source.
=================================================================================
Just who are these "Fathers" you speak of? Can you list them? Does the list change throughout history?
With my lack of knowledge about specific Bible passages I probably should not have entered into this particular discussion. But I did because I was curious and I will continue because I do have these questions or misgivings and I would like to hear how others see things.
I guess the best place to start is to say that in my twenties (in the mid-sixties)I noticed a diminution of the emphasis on the first three Commandments. It seemed that the whole reason for my being,the purpose for which I and others were born was getting fuzzier and a new facet was taking precedence,and that was to love my neighbor as I loved myself.
I had always heard this as part of the Gospel and the reason we were to help others and act with charity to anyone in any kind of material and spiritual need but to that point (the sixties)it had always been emphasized that first we must love God.This was in order to understand love,since He created us and loved us first and in that process we would begin to understand love and how to love HIm. From that base,understanding His love for us and our returning that love,we would get an understanding of the love we should bring to others.
As time went on I heard the epistles from Galations and Romans used as the scriptural basis for the homilies that were more and more boring and useless. Both of these passages sum up the Gospel (according to Paul) as "love your neighbor".Since I knew Jesus in both Mark and Matthew said the greatest Commandment was "Love God" and then,"Love your neighbor as yourself",I just continued to love God first and did not look at this as conflict (Jesus vis a vis Paul)but I was aware of a deemphasis.
Concomitant with this subtle change in the "preaching" was a change in the "teaching".The search for God became an individual "experiential" endeavor.Again,I attributed to reading more and more of Paul,who I had accepted previously as the "apostle" to the Gentiles and building on the Old Testament and the New but never denying Truth.But then I started listening for traces of what God had asked of all who believed in Him,such as obedience to the Ten Commandments but all I saw in Paul was testimony that we were no longer under the law.And,as I listened and read,it seemed to me that I was hearing an advocacy of a new religion,free of more than just the dietary laws and the sacrificial laws but free of the moral Law.
I know I am not expressing myself clearly but I hope you can discern my concerns.To try to put it another way. Jesus seems to cultivate,plant,water and weed in order to bring Truth and establish it within the kingdom,He is a nourisher and a nurturer and a shepherd,He is God.Paul seems to act as if,the Truth springs full grown in your heart from some "enlightenment experience" similar to his.
I know Paul is accepted by the Church and his writings as official scripture,my thoughts are that at this point in the Western world he is used without the proper foundation and has hurt Christianity.That is what I meant.Help!!
Reggie, have you asked yourself what the term "such interpretations" refers too? Given its place in the sentence of the decree, the "such interpretations" could refer either to the subject of the immediately prior clause -- the unanimous consent of the Fathers--or it could refer to the subject of the whole decree--the interpretations of the pestulant spirits that are either contrary to the sense of the text accepted by the Church or the sense of the text having unanimous consent of the Fathers. The antecedent of "such interpretations" is the interpretations of pestulant spirits, namely, the interpretations are forbidden EVEN IF NOT YET PUBLISHED. That is the subject matter of the whole decree--the interpretations of the pestulant spirits. Certainly, the decree is not at all forbidding the publication of the writings of the Fathers. After all, Bellarmine, (and de Sales and a million others) were, after Trent, reading published copies of the Fathers and constructing again and again, overwhelming arguments, drawn from the full range of Patristic writings, showing that there was unanimous consent of the Fathers on this or that point. Even if you deny in advance that such arguments are possible, they have already been produced. Read any one of these authors.
You would be better off not reading the Bible at allWhy in the world would you say that? Would it be better off not to read it just because I cannot make it say whatever I personally want, but am to understand it along with the rest of the Church? Are you saying that just because you cannot be a lone ranger, you cannot profit from the text? Unless I interpret the text on my own authority, like you do, it is not worth studying or contemplating at all?
As for the list of Fathers, much of what they wrote is available online at www.newadvent.org Take about fifteen years off, work through that list of texts, then tell me you cannot prove anything. Then learn Latin and Greek, then take another forty years and read the texts that have not been translated. Until then, you are simply stepping way beyond your ability to verify what can and cannot be done.
Jesus was fully human and fully divine.
If you do not believe that he was both fully human and fully divine, then he is only partly human or partly divine, and you just affirmed either a particular version of Arianism or Nestorianism, which ever way you go.
Pulling out all those passages from Romans simply raises they same point all over. They obviously do not apply to Jesus Christ, so "all" means "all with at least one exception" "none" means "none with at least one exception". If you do not admit this, my atheist buddy can point out to you some more contradictions in your bible.
As for the point about Mary needing a savior, the Catholic Church concedes the point. see my post #302. If all this time you have thought that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is not saved by Jesus Christ, then you have been attacking a gigantic straw man -- a doctrine no one holds, not even the Catholic Church.
"Why in the world would you say that? Would it be better off not to read it just because I cannot make it say whatever I personally want, but am to understand it along with the rest of the Church? Are you saying that just because you cannot be a lone ranger, you cannot profit from the text? Unless I interpret the text on my own authority, like you do, it is not worth studying or contemplating at all?
Because you are not competent or qualified to do so. That is not my opinion, it is the stated as a fact by your Church. Rather than stick your neck out and possibly be in serious error you should simply ask for the "authentic" interpretation. Shut of your "Thinker" and turn on your "Acceptor".
Catholic Catechism 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. Article 3
=================================================================================
As for the list of Fathers, much of what they wrote is available online at www.newadvent.org Take about fifteen years off, work through that list of texts, then tell me you cannot prove anything. Then learn Latin and Greek, then take another forty years and read the texts that have not been translated. Until then, you are simply stepping way beyond your ability to verify what can and cannot be done.
Surely you are aware "much" doesn't begin to approach the all inclusiveness of "unanimous". I am asking for your unique definition of "unanimous" and how you intend to prove it.
Since you obviously feel it is within your ability to "verify what can or cannot be done", why don't you do it for this simpleton and the millions of others in the same condition.
It is not possible, is it, that you are simply submitting your will and intellect to the "Church" and accepting what "they" say simply because "they" said it?
Canon 752: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
Canon 753: “While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”
There, that makes it easier for you, no longer a need for pretense, no longer a need to think, simply submit your will, mind, and intellect!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.