|
The Question: One of the first things that brought doubts to me about my original faith was that I felt that the interpretation of Scripture was not authoritative. How were we to know that our interpretation was the correct one, when so many others held entirely contrary beliefs, and all of us relying on Scripture as an authority? Could the Catholic claim of being authoritative have had any more merit than the claims of the independent churches? The Response: I have seen this same argument, or one very similar, from quite a number of Catholics. It puzzles me that a person who claims to be led by the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Scriptures does not consider that interpretation to be authoritative. This same individual, it would appear, also does not consider his pastor or preacher's interpretation to be authoritative. Yet this person, in the next sentence, implies that he does consider the Catholic Church's interpretation to be authoritative. Apparently we don't have the means to recognize the infallibility of God's Word directly, but somehow we do have the means to recognize some institution as being infallible in itself. I cannot comprehend why such a person, who does not trust what he believes is his own Spirit-guided understanding of the Scriptures, or that of his pastor, would be willing to trust the Catholic Church to tell him what the Scriptures say. How often are we informed, as for example when I criticized the papal public 'apologies' that were in vogue not long ago, that the actions of individuals cannot be charged against Mother Church? Yet are not those who determine for the RCC what the Scriptures say individuals? So, do Catholics believe that that the Holy Spirit only guides the Magisterium to the true meaning of Scripture, while leaving individuals, Catholic and otherwise, to search unguided for that illusive truth? Is God a liar?
Of course Christ did not lie. When Jesus spoke these words, He was addressing His disciples, but the promise applies to all believers. The RCC appears to accept this, nominally at least.
One question that jumps immediately to mind is: Who are the faithful mentioned in the above citation from the Catholic catechism? It seems to me that the use of this term is situational. In the CCC, references are made to the faithful, the Catholic faithful, and the Christian faithful, as though the terms had distinct, though similar, meanings. Actually, it seems to me that, papal pronouncements to the contrary, the various terms are but another example of the Catholic Church's expertise in the 'science' of applied obfuscation. When some official of Mother Church is speaking ecumenically, the use of the term 'Christian faithful' gives the impression that it refers to all those who profess faith in Jesus Christ and who have been baptized within some religious context. If that were so, would this not suggest a conflict with the dogma first 'infallibly' defined by Boniface VIII:
In their drive to bring all religions and religious practices under the Roman Catholic umbrella, recent popes and those who labor under their pseudo-divine authority as Vicarius Filii Dei have fostered the idea that just about anyone, even those who have never heard of Jesus Christ, can somehow be saved by seeking truth and doing God's will as he comprehends it. This, of course, facilitates the ecumenical labors of the RCC by opening the door to salvation, and by inference, submission to the Roman pope, to just about everyone, including Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Muslims, observant Jews, etc. One wonders whether this teaching of the 'infallible' Catholic Magisterium can be extended to Druids, Wiccans and atheists. This doctrine, expressed in paragraph 1260 of the CCC, appears to be in stark conflict with the dogma proclaimed by Boniface VIII and confirmed by the l7th Ecumenical Council, convened in Florence (AD 1438-45). This 'infallible' dogma is contained in the Decree for the Jacobites within the bull Cantata Domini promulgated by Eugene IV in AD 1441:
It is a dogmatic teaching that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved. This dogma was defined by a reigning pope and confirmed by a general council of the Catholic Church. The classical understanding of a dogma is that it is an “object of divine and Catholic faith.
As one conservative Catholic theologian writes:
If what Miller wrote is an accurate statement of Catholic doctrine, then in order for one to be saved, he must affirm and believe “any and every dogma” of the Catholic Church which would, I submit, make him a Catholic. However, in the case of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is not enough, according to the definers of this dogma, merely to be Catholic. If the “sacraments of the Church” are to be of benefit for salvation, one must have “remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” And it was specifically mentioned that “fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service” can produce eternal reward only for those who remain in the unity of the ecclesiastical body.” It also was specifically stated that not even by shedding one's blood in the name of Christ can one be saved “unless he has remained in the bosom and unit of the Catholic Church.” The Catechism makes it quite clear that faith and baptism are necessary for salvation.
Catholicism teaches that faith is a supernatural gift from God, something that I believe any evangelical believer would accept.
Catholicism also teaches that faith is an exercise of the intellect and the will.
My Miriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary informs that “ASSENT implies an act involving the understanding or judgment and applies to propositions or opinions [voters assented to the proposal].” Should one understand that then, according to Catholic doctrine, faith is the result of an act of will by which a man chooses to attach himself to what he understands to be God's self-revelation? That appears to be the case:
So, according to the teachings of the Roman Church, it is up to individual man to choose whether or not to believe. Or is it? After all, does not the Catechism declare that faith is a gift from God? Whether the product of an exercise of man's will or a gift from God, it would appear that there is another – indispensable – element to the Catholic understanding of faith.
In other words, faith is a gift from God to the Catholic Church, which then passes it along to men who, in an exercise of will, may choose to accept it or not. So, who are the faithful? According to the teachings of Catholicism, it would seem, the term faithful, whether standing alone or modified by the addition of such adjectives as Catholic or Christian, in the CCC in reality refers only to those who are in 'the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” This understanding is made clear in a number of places in the Catechism, such as:
How different these teachings are from those of Christ, Who said:
|
![]()
| Home | More Catechetics | Catholic Stuff | PTG Forum | ![]() |