Question: So you think the Catholic Church is right on EVERYTHING it teaches? I don't know how you can say that--it sounds very "cultish" to me.
His stance on this issue is really quite interesting and is worth breaking down and analyzing because it exposes a very bizarre logic at work.
When you look closely, you see that my claim that the Catholic Faith is 100% correct in it's teaching and doctrine--that it is, in matters of faith and morals, infallible--necessarily, in his opinion makes that same faith faulty, suspect and on par with the groups who indoctrinate their followers, live in compounds, and encourage the emptying of bank accounts into the "Leader's" coffers.
However, if I'd have claimed the Catholic Faith to be subject to error, that I had no idea how "right" they were on any given subject and that they had no more authority than anybody else, then, by his standards, the Catholic Faith would NOT have been nearly as suspect, faulty or "cultish". It would simply have been "normal."
The very fact that I claim that it's right, necessarily means, in his opinion, that it's wrong. However, if I'd claim that it was wrong on certain things--perhaps many--that would have freed my friend's conscience enough that he could, without guilt, conclude that it may be OK afterall.
That's unusual reasoning to say the least, but I understand where it comes from. Many in the Protestant world are completely unfamiliar with the concept of 100% accuracy in faith and morals. We (I say "we" as I haven't officially left this world, yet) would rather cling to a notion of "fundamentals"--those basic or core beliefs that all faiths must hold in order to be deemed truly "Christian". Get these things "right" and you're OK--and all the other stuff is just extra. It's fluff. To claim 100% accuracy in teachings is, however, as my friend said, bordering on brainwashed.
And yet, is it really impossible to believe that the Church of God could be infallible? Now, I'm not dealing with the arguments or questions of whether the Catholic Church is the one Church of God. I'm not dealing with the question of whether the Catholic Church is in fact infallible. Those are topics for another post. What I'm asking here is simply this: is it impossible--against reason--that the Church of God could be infallible in its Doctrine and Morals?
I think almost all Christians believe in some concept of infallibility in Christian teachings--we just don't often think of it in those terms. For example, were the disciples infallible in their teachings? Not in their actions (as St. Peter demonstrates), but in their teachings--the doctrines they passed on--were they infallible? Or could they make mistakes? Could the letters they wrote, which later became the Bible, and the early sermons they preached have been interspersed with error or did the Holy Spirit protect the teaching?
And yet, is it really impossible to believe that the Church of God could be infallible? Now, I'm not dealing with the arguments or questions of whether the Catholic Church is the one Church of God. I'm not dealing with the question of whether the Catholic Church is in fact infallible. Those are topics for another post. What I'm asking here is simply this: is it impossible--against reason--that the Church of God could be infallible in its Doctrine and Morals?
I think almost all Christians believe in some concept of infallibility in Christian teachings--we just don't often think of it in those terms. For example, were the disciples infallible in their teachings? Not in their actions (as St. Peter demonstrates), but in their teachings--the doctrines they passed on--were they infallible? Or could they make mistakes? Could the letters they wrote, which later became the Bible, and the early sermons they preached have been interspersed with error or did the Holy Spirit protect the teaching?
If not--if the Holy Spirit did not ensure their teachings and protect them from error--then how do we know what in the Bible is true and what isn't? If that's the case, then we can't know anything. At best, we can hope. Or believe. But assurance is out the window.
However, if the Holy Spirit did protect and ensured the accuracy of the teaching, then what was His reason for doing so? Was it to merely preserve the early believers from being presented a false faith? Was it only the first generation He was concerned with? Or is God concerned with all believers through all ages?
However, if the Holy Spirit did protect and ensured the accuracy of the teaching, then what was His reason for doing so? Was it to merely preserve the early believers from being presented a false faith? Was it only the first generation He was concerned with? Or is God concerned with all believers through all ages?
If God is not concerned with the spiritual development of all believers through all ages, then we're out of luck in ways we cannot even comprehend. If God only cared about the spiritual development of first generation or second generation Christians, then He's really no better than a deadbeat dad who spiritually sired a large family and then casually walked away to leave them to fend for themselves. In short, if God doesn't care about our spiritual development, what hope do we have?
On the other hand, if He is concerned with the spiritual development of all believers through all ages--and all Christians (except maybe the Unitarians) will argue that He is not just concerned, but actively and critically concerned--then isn't it at least possible that He would do something (if He could) to ensure that the faith is handed on accurately and 100% free from error through all those generations? (After all, what teacher would elect not to deliver lessons that were 100% free from error if it were in her power to do so?)
On the other hand, if He is concerned with the spiritual development of all believers through all ages--and all Christians (except maybe the Unitarians) will argue that He is not just concerned, but actively and critically concerned--then isn't it at least possible that He would do something (if He could) to ensure that the faith is handed on accurately and 100% free from error through all those generations? (After all, what teacher would elect not to deliver lessons that were 100% free from error if it were in her power to do so?)
Now, I think we can all agree that if He can't accomplish that--if it isn't in His power to ensure that the faith is taught accurately and free from error through all generations--then He isn't God and we can quit thinking about all of this because it's a waste of time.
But if He is God as we believe, then nothing is outside of His power and He therefore certainly could preserve His Church through all the ages and ensure that the faith she teaches, from the beginning to the end, from Day One to Day the Last, is the true and infallible, unadulterated faith.
But if He is God as we believe, then nothing is outside of His power and He therefore certainly could preserve His Church through all the ages and ensure that the faith she teaches, from the beginning to the end, from Day One to Day the Last, is the true and infallible, unadulterated faith.
So after all of that, we're left with this: if God is who He says He is and if He truly is concerned about the spiritual well-being of all His children, earnestly desiring their salvation, is it really unbelievable that He would take active steps to guarantee the faith? He died to save us. Protecting the faith from error would require significantly less effort.
Again, I'm not arguing right now that the Catholic Church is that Church that Christ established and I'm not arguing that she is infallible (I believe both suppositions, but am not arguing them now). I'm simply arguing that the notion of infallibility shouldn't surprise Christians. It shouldn't shock us. It shouldn't evoke laughter, ridicule or condescension from us. From the world, yes. But not from Christians.
If we react to the notion of infallibility in a Church and argue that it's impossible or that anyone who believes such a thing is "drinking the kool-aid", then it's only because we've forgotten the Founder of our Faith. We've forgotten Christianity wasn't founded by a man or a group of men. The Christian religion was founded by Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is God.
When we remember that then suddenly Infallibility and Protection from Error and Guarantees and All Truth aren't strange expressions, exceptions to the rule or lofty ideals never to be realized. When we look to God as the Originator, perfection is just par for the course.
If we react to the notion of infallibility in a Church and argue that it's impossible or that anyone who believes such a thing is "drinking the kool-aid", then it's only because we've forgotten the Founder of our Faith. We've forgotten Christianity wasn't founded by a man or a group of men. The Christian religion was founded by Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ is God.
When we remember that then suddenly Infallibility and Protection from Error and Guarantees and All Truth aren't strange expressions, exceptions to the rule or lofty ideals never to be realized. When we look to God as the Originator, perfection is just par for the course.
No comments:
Post a Comment