In another thread, I was sounded criticised by frequent commentators Paul and Mateo for arguing that reason and questioning “authority” have an important place in considering spiritual matters. For instance, when I said: “thinking people generally choose their beliefs, based on what seems reasonable and consistent with their experience”,

I received the strange reply:

“According to your logic, following Jesus Christ is a choice to stop thinking. I don't believe that you have shown that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Until you can, most of your opinions here are mere blind faith in your own convictions. You don't know why you believe what you believe...

Or the more logical reply from Paul: “: If, by "thinking people" you mean people who reduce everything to logic, then I suppose that is sadly true for them. However, thinking people who also have an awareness of greater realities, and access to them through faith, recognize that there is much objective truth that simply doesn't break down into simple rational principles accessible to limited human logic. These people choose their beliefs the same way most of us choose our medical, political, scientific, financial, and other beliefs - by looking to higher authority, in this case the ultimate authority - God.”

My question in reply is: “How can humanity – or the church – progress if we cannot question what we have been taught?”

Surely our experience in many fields of knowledge has shown us that by questioning “authorities” we often have uncovered errors and discovered new truths to correct them. Is religious truth so different? Does it not hold up under critical examination?

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 23, 2003

Answers

"Surely our experience in many fields of knowledge has shown us that by questioning “authorities” we often have uncovered errors and discovered new truths to correct them. Is religious truth so different? Does it not hold up under critical examination?"

There is one critical difference between knowledge which has come to us as divinely revealed truth, and knowledge derived from our experience in other fields. In any other field of knowledge, the source of the information, even though they might be an internationally renowned authority in the field, COULD be wrong. Or, they could be right, and our perception of what they said could be wrong. So, when we question such information, we need to be open to both possibilities.

In the case of divinely revealed truth however, the source, God, could not be wrong. Therefore to question such truth from that perspective is illogical and unrealistic. Whenever our personal perceptions conflict with God's revealed truth, it is necessarily our perceptions that are wrong, not His revelation.

Once you realize that, there is only one further realization you need, in order to have access to infallible truth. God gave full authority to the Church He founded to speak the truth in His name, and He guaranteed that what the Church taught in His name would always be the truth. That's why the Church He founded is identified in the Bible as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3;15). Catholics know this. To Protestants, this idea is foreign, because their human founders rejected this essential Christian concept at the very beginning of their tradition. Protestants should indeed question what their churches teach, for the amount of disagreement and conflict between the doctrines of different denominations stands as clear proof that many of their teachings are false. But to criticize the teaching of the Church Christ founded is to criticize the word of God Himself. Such dissention is an accusation against God. It claims that God either was wrong in what He revealed to the Church; or, that He lied when He said that whatsoever the church made binding on earth would also be bound in heaven. Therefore any conflict between my personal perceptions and the teaching of the Church can only be realistically resolved if I approach the situation from the perspective of discovering where I am wrong. To suggest that I might be right on a point of doctrine, and the Church of God be wrong, is simply foolish pride, and defies the word of God Himself.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 23, 2003.

Origenmoscow writes:

"I received the strange reply:

[Quoting me] “According to your logic, following Jesus Christ is a choice to stop thinking."

Origenmoscow, I was responding to the following text:

"To just accept what is given by others, even the most venerable institutions, is simply to stop thinking."

I even quoted the text so that I wouldn't confuse you. How could you miss the connection?

Anyway, here is your text substituted with the appropriate words to make my point.

"To just accept what is given by Jesus Christ, even the most venerable institutions, is simply to stop thinking."

According to your logic, those who accepted what Jesus taught "stopped thinking." According to your logic, the Pharisees and Sadducees who ignored Jesus were the only ones in the New Testament who are thinking people, "choos[ing] their beliefs, based on what seems reasonable and consistent with their experience."

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), February 23, 2003.

Along those same lines, the only women who exercise "choice" are those who kill their babies! (And we are accused of "narrow-mindedness"!) Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), February 23, 2003.

Paul,

That was an excellent response to Origen's questions. Once we realize that the Holy Spirit (God) is declaring the truth, how can we question it?

God Bless, Glenn

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), February 23, 2003.

To Paul: This is very well reasoned response. Of course, I disagree. It seems that anything, absolutely anything you are told by “the church” must be correct and beyond any examination. This is the end of any and all discussions. But it’s a dead end, I feel. What use is your fine mind and obvious education if you are forbidden to use it for anything important?

But we’re indeed blessed that all religious truth has been handed down from on high, so securely and clearly. ;^)

To Mateo: You are confusing Jesus Christ with people and institutions that claim to speak for him. You can choose to accept those claims, uncritically, and I suppose you do.

But how, exactly, is this any different than the poor Muslim who accepts that his imam speaks for God in interpreting the Koran for him? Or that the Koran is indeed God’s “final” revelation to humankind and properly recorded by Mohammed and properly preserved by Islamic authorities since then? Would he not be much better off (from our perspective, not his imam’s) to question a few things?

Not everyone is so lucky as to be born into the True Faith. Some of us poor non-Catholics have only our small brains with which to puzzle things out.

For Anna: How did abortion enter the debate? I understand the moral reasoning behind the Catholic teaching on that fairly well – and it’s not the kind of thing I’d try to debate here.

For Glenn: If you have a direct line to the Holy Spirit, you’re too exalted for my (or anyone else’s) arguments. You should be teaching the rest of us. But I suppose you must have meant that the Roman Catholic Church has a direct line to the Holy Spirit.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 24, 2003.

Paul, your whole argument surely turns upon the soundness of the doctrine (?) of infallibility and in that sense is a tautology?

Anyway, you say “there is only one further realization you need, in order to have access to infallible truth. God gave full authority to the Church He founded to speak the truth in His name, and He guaranteed that what the Church taught in His name would always be the truth. That's why the Church He founded is identified in the Bible as "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3;15). Catholics know this.”

To me that means that every Catholic must be comfortable that, according to Scripture and other accounts of the earliest history of our Church: (1) God made Peter the head of the Church; (2) the office, of which Peter was first holder, was to be perpetual; and (3) the holder is to be infallible in the way you describe,

the corollary being that he/she is not a Catholic.

Now, none of (1) to (3) is that straightforward (hence intellectually gifted/ Scripturally knowledgeable/ decent people creating the East- West split or buying into the Reformation). And I would be willing to bet that the majority of Catholics would not know where to start a vaguely plausible proof of this, myself included. I am the first to recognise my lack of knowledge and I am actively engaged in a programme of improving my knowledge of the Church; but I do not accept that I must blindly follow others as this cannot be true faith. I certainly find it hard to believe that points (1) to (3) are core to our faith.

Surely a “Catholic” is someone who “belongs” to the Church established by Jesus and who tries to adhere to its teachings (whatever the failings of its leaders). Or is a Catholic someone who either (a) has a very thorough grasp of the Bible (how many of us does that apply to?) and the history of our Church and believes in the whole gamut of rules and regulations as he has proved them to himself, or (b) someone who does what he is told? But (a) is elitist, and (b) is, well, pointless in the end.

To illustrate the difficulties, I would also point out that 1 Tim also appears to endorse slavery, encourages women to be quiet in worship, suggest that childbearing will cure their inherent unholiness (?), suggests that those engaged in the preaching of God’s message should be married,…… You then go to Tim 3:15 -- "the pillar and support of the truth" – and this could have any number of meanings.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 24, 2003.

Dear Origen,

"It seems that anything, absolutely anything you are told by “the church” must be correct and beyond any examination."

A: Certainly not - only doctrinal truth. As for being beyond examination, it has already been examined, discussed, and discerned by the greatest theological minds currently on the planet. Is it likely that my personal examination will pick up something they missed? That doesn't mean I can't think about the doctrine as it exists, and pethaps gain some new insights. But to examine the doctrine with the idea that it might be wrong, and I might be right would be plain foolish.

What use is your fine mind and obvious education if you are forbidden to use it for anything important?

A: What could be more important than knowing the truth? And when God Himself has clearly indicated the path to truth, what could be more logical than following the path He has indicated?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 24, 2003.

Dear Derek,

I see nothing tautological about basing a belief on the known facts. Why else would a thinking person accept something as true?

You say: "To me that means that every Catholic must be comfortable that, according to Scripture and other accounts of the earliest history of our Church: (1) God made Peter the head of the Church; (2) the office, of which Peter was first holder, was to be perpetual; and (3) the holder is to be infallible in the way you describe."

A: Well, I can't say what every Catholic MUST do or think; but every Catholic certainly SHOULD take great comfort and assurance in those known facts.

"Now, none of (1) to (3) is that straightforward."

A: No, not entirely. That's why God gave us an infallible Church to interpret His word. Otherwise it would all be guesswork, and no-one could really know the truth (even though everyone might think they do).

"hence intellectually gifted/ Scripturally knowledgeable/decent people creating the East- West split or buying into the Reformation."

A: Here you contrast apples and oranges. People who "created the East- West split" may very well be intellectually gifted, and/or scripturally knowledgeable, since with the obvious exception of the authority of the Vicar of Christ, they adhere to traditional Christian truth, which remains as it always was, Catholic Truth. People who are "buying into the Reformation" may also be intellectually gifted, but they are NOT scripturally knowledgeable, merely scripturally opinionated, since they have rejected the sole means of valid interpretation. I believe the current state of doctrinal chaos in their tradition serves as clear evidence of this.

"And I would be willing to bet that the majority of Catholics would not know where to start a vaguely plausible proof of this"

A: Sad to say, that is true. Self-education in the faith is the responsibility of every Catholic, but is often largely neglected. We offer a course in apologetics in our parish, to try to improve upon this situation.

"I do not accept that I must blindly follow others as this cannot be true faith. I certainly find it hard to believe that points (1) to (3) are core to our faith".

A: "Blindly following" would mean following without reasonable cause. Recognition of points (1) to (3) are the reasonable cause. To simply follow along without recognition of these profound realities would indeed be the case of sheep following the shepherd - not necessarily a bad thing, but hardly a full appreciation of and participation in the faith. Points (1) to (3) are not the core of the faith. They are the means by which we can KNOW that the core of our faith is true. There is no other possible way we could know this with objective certainty.

"To illustrate the difficulties, I would also point out that 1 Tim also appears to endorse slavery, encourages women to be quiet in worship, suggest that childbearing will cure their inherent unholiness (?), suggests that those engaged in the preaching of God’s message should be married"

A" Yes, such passages are difficult indeed, for someone who has to figure them out for himself! Which is why the scriptures tell us that scripture is not for personal interpretation; and which is precisely why Jesus gave us a reliable source of such interpretation - His Church! All of the passages you offered as examples cause great confusion among Protestants. None of them cause confusion for Catholics who listen to the Church. What a gift! For example - 1 Tim 3:2, to which you referred, says that an overseer of the Church should be the husband of one wife. Protestants actually use this passage to attack priestly celibacy, based on their naive, simplistic, face value interpretation of this passage as a requirement that all priests be married! (Never mind all the Protestant ministers who are single). The wisdom of the Church however, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recognizes this passage in its full context and, while I won't go here into the whole historical/cultural milieu surrounding this passage, suffice it to say that the passage is clearly a condemnation of polygamy, NOT a command to marry! Such blatant errors are just amazingly commonplace in Christian bodies which attempt to interpret the scriptures outside of the context in which God intended them to be interpreted.

"You then go to Tim 3:15 -- "the pillar and support of the truth" – and this could have any number of meanings."

A: Yep. This could have an infinite number of possible meanings - and does in Protestantism! Thank God for the Church!!!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 24, 2003.

Ah, Derek. If the others had your heart and attitude, I would find little with which to argue.

I have no problem with the Catholic faith as faith, or as a deep tradition of wisdom. As the adage goes, some of my best friends are Catholic. Some of the greatest scholars are Catholic. Some of the greatest humanitarians are Catholic. Some of the most deeply spiritual people are Catholic.

I'm only questioning "the church's" authority over the whole of humanity.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.

>"Not everyone is so lucky as to be born into the True Faith. Some of us poor non-Catholics have only our small brains with which to puzzle things out. "

Origen as lucky as we are we dont presume that faith alone will lead us to all the truths, so dont worry we still need your "small brain" for tasks they can grasp, but hope you have the humility and honesty to leave the mysteries of life to God. As I ask every very clever person like yourself who belives they have the answers in themselves.. please when your "small brain" has quantified and given a rational explanation for love let me know.

Again, youre probably sick of hearing words from Paul, buts heres a few more ;-)....

"Knowledge and faith cannot be compared or contrasted, any more than knowledge and study can. Study is a means to knowledge, and faith is also a means to knowledge. Science and religion are the two great seekers of truth. Their methods differ, and so do the specific kinds of truths they can address. Indeed, the truths of one cannot be discovered by the methods of the other. Still, objective truth is the goal of both disciplines, and when either scientific truths or religious truths are discovered, they constitute knowledge. Whether or not someone accepts that knowledge ("believes" in it) is an entirely separate issue. There are religious truths that are widely known, but are not believed by some individuals; and there are scientific truths that are widely known, yet are rejected by some people. Universal acceptance of a body of knowledge is not necessary in order for that knowledge to be valid. Otherwise there would be no such thing as knowledge."

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), February 25, 2003.

Dear Kiwi,

No, I cannot presume to ever grasp the deeper things of life intellectually. I am content to just try to experience them.

Life, love, and religious experience are great mysteries. Being is a mystery.

I obviously disagree with Paul and Mateo on many things: but mostly on whether "the church's" spiritual authority can be rationally justified, or not. For them, it is to be accepted on faith. For me, I need to see some strong evidence.

Why? Because many other institutions make conflicting claims upon my life, and they cannot all be right. In fact, I think none of them are right.

My experience is that God speaks to each person as much as he or she will, or is able to, listen. As I said in a previous argument with Paul and Mateo, religious exclusivity is a "house of cards". Earthly institutions may be a guide to humanity, but their "authority" is only relative.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.

OK, but:

1 until interpretation of those parts of the Scriptures/ other history proves to any given individual that points (1) to (3) (Peter as head, head as perpetual office, office-holder to be infallible) are true, then how can the individual delegate interpretation of the books to the Church without devaluing his faith (the sheep following someone that "might" be a good shepherd). to put it another way, it seems odd that the Church should have the final say on the meaning of the words that purportedly give it the final say. do you not see the contradiction here?

2 not sure i see how apples and oranges come into it in this context. if the Easterns have rejected the Pope's leadership and his authority, then they are in the same boat as the Protestants because they must be devising their own doctrine. this may just happens to accord closely with Roman doctrine as we have 1,000 years of common history, but the major difference between the Churches (the Pope and the matters at hand) is you say a core part of our faith.

3 true, the Easterns have stuck together whilst there are over 20,000 Protestant churches, many teaching different things; but does this not prove that there is great practical sense in having hierarchy and discipline (as per any other large organisation). this can be man made and have the same effect (the Eastern Patriarch's do not claim any kind of special privilege, do they?).

4 i certainly see a logic in God wanting a leader and a doctrine of infallibility to exist, that is for sure. point 3 explains why. but i really do struggle at times.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 25, 2003.

i realise that this point is covered is some other recent threads so feel free to deflect me if this is tiresome.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 25, 2003.

btw, Origen, the answer is staring you in the face: you should join the Catholic Church despite yr reservations and see where that takes you!! i can tell you now for sure that are plenty of "liberals" as they like to call us (or even Protestants as i have been called in the past) in the RCC; and even more people who have never even asked the questions that you ask. remember that the Church provides a marvellous place in wish to worhip with a billion other Christians, it is the Church IMHO that most reflects the true mystery of the faith and is most closely connected to Jesus' word (despite all my differences with it), and in due course i believe that it may be the one substantive thing stands between us and the progression of society towards damnation. i may be liberal (i would like women priests, married priests, etc), but even i am just appalled at some of the things that are happening in today's world - the market in babies, cloning, gays adopting children, practicing gays in the ministry. i do not need an infallible source to tell me that this is all wrong. just remember also that there will be another Vatican COuncil and many of your problems can disappear over time. if you like the Church but would also like it to change, then you are in the wrong position as things stand. sorry if this is patronising btw.

-- Derek Duval Jnr (derek.duval@virgin.net), February 25, 2003.

Dear Derek,

You make a tempting offer. If I join, will Paul and Mateo leave? ;^)

Seriously, I cannot. I can and often have "fellowshipped" with Catholics, worshipped with them, gone on Catholic retreats, courses, seminars, etc., and maybe I will again one day.

I seriously considered joining some years ago. But in my heart, I would never really belong. My critical mind sees too much bad along with the undeniable good.

But I am very glad that there are people like you there. Work to change it, if that's your wish.

Of course, it's like therapy -- it has to want to change.

-- Origen (origenmoscow@yahoo.com), February 25, 2003.

The Church is a Divine creation with imperfect humans who administer it. There will be some faults and abuses in some areas (except in dogmas and teachings of Faith and morals).

But dont you think that if Christ loved us so much to have come and died for our sins that he would want to make sure that his teachings, message and word would not be distorted after teh passing of time? would he not in some way guarantee to us that we could receive the truth about his life and mission from some reliable source? Is that not reasonable? Wouldn't it be unreasonable if Christ did not establish the Church to safeguard and portray his teachings? If not then Christ was an idealist about human nature, seeing we have over 20,000 christian churches each with different interpretations about what Christ taught.

Christ wasn't stupid or an idealist, he live with us weak humans. That is why he established The Catholic Church, founded on Peter, sealed with his Holy Spirt, with the guarantee that He would be with it until the end of time.

Lord Jesus, thank you for your Holy Catholic Church which is the instrument of your love and guardian of your teachings. Bless it, sanctify it's members, guide it's pastors and liberate it from those who only seek their own good or power. You have established the Church to be the means for us to know your plan of Salvation in a way that is pure and from the Source of Life - yourself. Help us to see the wisdom in your love and cherish this most precious gift.

Amen

-- Joseph Carl Biltz (jcbiltz@canoemail.com), February 25, 2003.

I don't know if this has been said, but

"Credo ut Intelligam"- "I believe in order that I may understand", or "I havre faith in order that I may understand".

This is the link made by St. Augustine between faith and reason, one that I agree with wholeheartedly. Simply put, all rational systems require a faith based assumption from which they work. For instance for mathematics to work you have to assume and have faith that numbers exist. For science to work, you have to believe, have faith, that the scientific method is correct. You can deny both science and mathematics by denying their vey bases.

-- VQ (vquite@po-box.mcgill.ca), November 03, 2003.

St. Anselm (AD 1033-1109)

-- (Who@said.it?), November 03, 2003.

St. Anselm said it as "credo ut intelligam" first, but St. Augustine was the first to make the connection.

-- . (whothoughtit@yahoo.com), November 03, 2003.

Posted as I did so that no readers, in writing future messages of their own, would attribute the three Latin words to St. Augustine, an easy mistake to make since St. Anselm was not credited.

-- (Who@said.it?), November 04, 2003.