Trying to Have the Church Without Admitting Protection From Error

In the past, I talked about certain groups who claim that the Church today has fallen into error—usually done to defend themselves when they run afoul of a teaching they dislike. My usual response is that if the Church could be permitted to fall into error, then Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20 would be promises that Jesus either could not or would not keep. That would mean that He was not God, because God keeps His promises. But Jesus is God and He keeps His promises. Therefore the Church could not have fallen into error.

Counter-argument #1

It occurs to me, however, that some might want to defend their own position at the expense of the Church, arguing that this would be the wrong interpretation of these verses and therefore the reliability (and divinity) of Jesus Christ is protected… basically that the promises of protection means something different than what the Church thinks it means. Therefore when the Church speaks against what *I* think right, it must be in error.

But that argument won't work. When Jesus speaks of the Church, He speaks of a visible Church which teaches in His name and with His authority. If we have a dispute, we are to go to this Church. If we refuse to listen to this Church, we are to be treated as a tax-collector. That means the Church that speaks with His authority must be visible and we must be able to go to it with confidence—which indicates a Church that can be trusted to make the right decisions with His authority. That reasonably assumes a Church which is protected from error.

Counter-argument #2

Another attempt to defend one's position at the expense of the Church might be that the whole Church never goes entirely into error at one time, but no single part of the Church is especially protected all the time. Under such a view, Rome might be the champion of truth at one time, Constantinople at another time and Écône at a third. Therefore Rome could be right in Vatican I, but wrong in Vatican II.

But this can't work either. if any part of the Church can go into error, then we can never know for sure when it wasn't in error. If you think it was possible that Rome could have been in error during Vatican II? Then why not in Vatican I? Why not Trent? Why not Nicaea I for that matter?

The point is, if part of the Church can fall into error without us being able to know which part can be trusted to be protected from error, each part will simply assume it is protected from error during this dispute and the others are not (I mean, come on… does anybody approach a dispute with an attitude of Well, I'm probably the one in the wrong…?).  In such a scenario, the Church is going to wind up in constant division and become countless denominations. Once again, we would have no visible Church to turn to. It is only when we know that, no matter how rotten parts of the Church might become individually, the Church under the headship of the Pope is protected and we can know where the authoritative teaching of the Church—protected from error—can be found.

Counter-argument #3

Now, at this point, some Protestants might proclaim that the existence of the Bible means that we don't need to worry about a Church—we just need to follow the "plain sense" of Scripture.

But that doesn't refute the Catholic concern here—it is actually an example of why the protection from error in a visible Church is necessary. Right at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation you had the Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists and Anglicans. All of them proclaimed the Bible as their rule of faith and all of them used the Bible to justify their own positions and condemn the other three as being in error on important issues.

Each of these groups also split into multiple factions—each of them thinking themselves right and the others in error. Now I won't get into the arguments of how many denominations there are. "Over 10,000" is a number given by some Catholics, while some Protestants get offended by the use of that number and try to reduce it. The number of denominations is irrelevant. Even if the number of denominations had never gone beyond the four in the Protestant Reformation, that's still three too many—and that's if one of them was actually right to begin with (which is of course disputed).

And that's the point. Unless there is a visible Church with the authority given by Christ to determine where the true interpretation of His teachings lie, an inerrant Bible cannot be a guide—not because it is deficient, but because it could only be interpreted by fallible men and women. That is to say, men and women who can read and interpret it wrongly… and we can never know which ones. (Though it seems it never happens to be the person doing the reading and interpreting—apparently the Pope is the only person who is not infallible in this view).

An inerrant Bible needs a Church protected from error to interpret it from error, and the Church that can be protected from error must be visible and knowable. Otherwise we could never find it and never be able to know which interpretation was correct.

Conclusion

To insist on the point of the need for a Church which is known and protected from error is not some sort of "churciolatry." It is a reasoned understanding of God's promises to Peter and the Apostles… the gates of hell will not prevail against her and Jesus will be with us until the consummation of the world. Since the Popes are the successors of Peter and the promises were made to the Church with Peter at its head, it seems that it is entirely reasonable and faithful to Scripture to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as this Church.

QED.

Trying to Have the Church Without Admitting Protection From Error

In the past, I talked about certain groups who claim that the Church today has fallen into error—usually done to defend themselves when they run afoul of a teaching they dislike. My usual response is that if the Church could be permitted to fall into error, then Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20 would be promises that Jesus either could not or would not keep. That would mean that He was not God, because God keeps His promises. But Jesus is God and He keeps His promises. Therefore the Church could not have fallen into error.

Counter-argument #1

It occurs to me, however, that some might want to defend their own position at the expense of the Church, arguing that this would be the wrong interpretation of these verses and therefore the reliability (and divinity) of Jesus Christ is protected… basically that the promises of protection means something different than what the Church thinks it means. Therefore when the Church speaks against what *I* think right, it must be in error.

But that argument won't work. When Jesus speaks of the Church, He speaks of a visible Church which teaches in His name and with His authority. If we have a dispute, we are to go to this Church. If we refuse to listen to this Church, we are to be treated as a tax-collector. That means the Church that speaks with His authority must be visible and we must be able to go to it with confidence—which indicates a Church that can be trusted to make the right decisions with His authority. That reasonably assumes a Church which is protected from error.

Counter-argument #2

Another attempt to defend one's position at the expense of the Church might be that the whole Church never goes entirely into error at one time, but no single part of the Church is especially protected all the time. Under such a view, Rome might be the champion of truth at one time, Constantinople at another time and Écône at a third. Therefore Rome could be right in Vatican I, but wrong in Vatican II.

But this can't work either. if any part of the Church can go into error, then we can never know for sure when it wasn't in error. If you think it was possible that Rome could have been in error during Vatican II? Then why not in Vatican I? Why not Trent? Why not Nicaea I for that matter?

The point is, if part of the Church can fall into error without us being able to know which part can be trusted to be protected from error, each part will simply assume it is protected from error during this dispute and the others are not (I mean, come on… does anybody approach a dispute with an attitude of Well, I'm probably the one in the wrong…?).  In such a scenario, the Church is going to wind up in constant division and become countless denominations. Once again, we would have no visible Church to turn to. It is only when we know that, no matter how rotten parts of the Church might become individually, the Church under the headship of the Pope is protected and we can know where the authoritative teaching of the Church—protected from error—can be found.

Counter-argument #3

Now, at this point, some Protestants might proclaim that the existence of the Bible means that we don't need to worry about a Church—we just need to follow the "plain sense" of Scripture.

But that doesn't refute the Catholic concern here—it is actually an example of why the protection from error in a visible Church is necessary. Right at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation you had the Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists and Anglicans. All of them proclaimed the Bible as their rule of faith and all of them used the Bible to justify their own positions and condemn the other three as being in error on important issues.

Each of these groups also split into multiple factions—each of them thinking themselves right and the others in error. Now I won't get into the arguments of how many denominations there are. "Over 10,000" is a number given by some Catholics, while some Protestants get offended by the use of that number and try to reduce it. The number of denominations is irrelevant. Even if the number of denominations had never gone beyond the four in the Protestant Reformation, that's still three too many—and that's if one of them was actually right to begin with (which is of course disputed).

And that's the point. Unless there is a visible Church with the authority given by Christ to determine where the true interpretation of His teachings lie, an inerrant Bible cannot be a guide—not because it is deficient, but because it could only be interpreted by fallible men and women. That is to say, men and women who can read and interpret it wrongly… and we can never know which ones. (Though it seems it never happens to be the person doing the reading and interpreting—apparently the Pope is the only person who is not infallible in this view).

An inerrant Bible needs a Church protected from error to interpret it from error, and the Church that can be protected from error must be visible and knowable. Otherwise we could never find it and never be able to know which interpretation was correct.

Conclusion

To insist on the point of the need for a Church which is known and protected from error is not some sort of "churciolatry." It is a reasoned understanding of God's promises to Peter and the Apostles… the gates of hell will not prevail against her and Jesus will be with us until the consummation of the world. Since the Popes are the successors of Peter and the promises were made to the Church with Peter at its head, it seems that it is entirely reasonable and faithful to Scripture to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as this Church.

QED.

You Literally Bet Your Life: Thoughts on Pascal's Wager

Read more »

You Literally Bet Your Life: Thoughts on Pascal's Wager

Read more »

Two Attitudes. Two Questions. Two Considerations

Two Attitudes

I have noticed two common attitudes towards religion who try to avoid thinking about it.

The first is the attitude of indifferentism. Indifferentism is basically the attitude that all religions are pretty similar and the differences between them are minor quibbles that don't matter as long as we are all "nice" to each other. (Never mind the fact that what qualifies as being "nice" differs from religion to religion).

The second is the attitude of skepticism. Skepticism also looks at all the religions and sees the differences. The attitude of the skeptic is to look at all the differences and say, "we can't know which one, if any, is true so it doesn't matter if we just opt out of choosing."

These two attitudes—two sides of the same coin—make a universal conclusion out of the differences. Either they are insignificant or insurmountable and therefore religion doesn't matter. Accept or reject religion as you like.

Two Questions

I think these two attitudes can be addressed by two questions. For the Indifferent, the question is:

How do you know they're all equally valid?

For the skeptic, the question is:

How do you know they're all equally unimportant?

Two Considerations

The fact that there are different religions and that they say different things is not a matter of indifference. If there is a right way and a wrong way to do things, then one cannot reasonably say that it doesn't matter what way is chosen. Indifference is a positive laxness that does not think that the differences mean anything. Therefore one is as good as another. But just because the indifferent person sees the differences as unimportant doesn't mean that the differences are unimportant. In the world of law, thinking differences are unimportant and ignoring them can get a person in trouble if the person enforcing the law discovers you chose the wrong understanding of what is right.

This also applies to following God—if God has made known how He wants His followers to follow Him, choosing any old way to act is acting wrongly. Consider the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16, or the rebelling of Aaron and Miriam (Numbers 12). This was not a matter of indifference to God.

Dr. Peter Kreeft has used this example. Imagine a mountain with many roads going upwards. How do you know they all reach the top? The wrong path will not get you to the desired destination. So if one path is the path God has made (John 14:6) and the others are manmade, then the indifferent attitude that holds that one path is as good as another is a dangerous one indeed.

The skeptic takes an attitude of negative laxness. It too looks at the differences in the claims but, unlike the indifferent, the skeptic sees the contradictions and concludes that we can't know if any of them are true so we can safely ignore all of them. But when you think about it, does that attitude really make sense?

If you should go to a foreign country and are not sure what the traffic laws are, it would be foolish to head out on the road while thinking it doesn't matter if you choose to follow none of them. You would soon be before a judge. You couldn't plead "I didn't know so I thought it wasn't important!" The judge would ask why you didn't bother to at least try to seek out the rules.

Conclusion

Now you may ask me, "with all the competing views, how can I begin to find the right path?" (Now if you ask me personally, I'll try to save you some time and say, "It's the Catholic Church." But since I presume you meant, "How do I search for the right path…?" read on). The answer is, you need to seek out what is true—which means discerning what is true as opposed to what pleases you or what you want to be true.

A lot of people stop at "What gives me pleasure" and never asks whether what feels good is actually good. People get caught up in destructive relationships, alcohol, drugs, etc. They can't see beyond the pleasure and thus can't see that they are not searching for what is truth. Self delusion and fear of losing what is safe can often lead to never beginning the search.

The truth can be described as, to say of what is, that it is; and to say of what is not, that it is not is to speak the truth. So that's the first step. Looking for what is true by seeing if it is what it claims to be. When a claim is made whether about atheism, pantheism, paganism, monotheistic faiths and Christian denominations, the question "Is it true?" must be asked concerning the claims by the group and the claims made about the group (remember, people often speak falsely about what they don't know).

A search may take a long time. God calls a person on His time, not at your convenience. (And yes, I absolutely believe God exists and loves you personally regardless of whether or not you know Him yet). But the fact that a person has not yet encountered God doesn't give him or her the right to quit searching and just say, "Close enough, I'll just settle for this."

Just remember that it is never right to say "It doesn't matter which one I pick or even if I pick none of them." If you honestly seek the truth and pray to God to lead you to Him, you will eventually meet Him.

Two Attitudes. Two Questions. Two Considerations

Two Attitudes

I have noticed two common attitudes towards religion who try to avoid thinking about it.

The first is the attitude of indifferentism. Indifferentism is basically the attitude that all religions are pretty similar and the differences between them are minor quibbles that don't matter as long as we are all "nice" to each other. (Never mind the fact that what qualifies as being "nice" differs from religion to religion).

The second is the attitude of skepticism. Skepticism also looks at all the religions and sees the differences. The attitude of the skeptic is to look at all the differences and say, "we can't know which one, if any, is true so it doesn't matter if we just opt out of choosing."

These two attitudes—two sides of the same coin—make a universal conclusion out of the differences. Either they are insignificant or insurmountable and therefore religion doesn't matter. Accept or reject religion as you like.

Two Questions

I think these two attitudes can be addressed by two questions. For the Indifferent, the question is:

How do you know they're all equally valid?

For the skeptic, the question is:

How do you know they're all equally unimportant?

Two Considerations

The fact that there are different religions and that they say different things is not a matter of indifference. If there is a right way and a wrong way to do things, then one cannot reasonably say that it doesn't matter what way is chosen. Indifference is a positive laxness that does not think that the differences mean anything. Therefore one is as good as another. But just because the indifferent person sees the differences as unimportant doesn't mean that the differences are unimportant. In the world of law, thinking differences are unimportant and ignoring them can get a person in trouble if the person enforcing the law discovers you chose the wrong understanding of what is right.

This also applies to following God—if God has made known how He wants His followers to follow Him, choosing any old way to act is acting wrongly. Consider the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16, or the rebelling of Aaron and Miriam (Numbers 12). This was not a matter of indifference to God.

Dr. Peter Kreeft has used this example. Imagine a mountain with many roads going upwards. How do you know they all reach the top? The wrong path will not get you to the desired destination. So if one path is the path God has made (John 14:6) and the others are manmade, then the indifferent attitude that holds that one path is as good as another is a dangerous one indeed.

The skeptic takes an attitude of negative laxness. It too looks at the differences in the claims but, unlike the indifferent, the skeptic sees the contradictions and concludes that we can't know if any of them are true so we can safely ignore all of them. But when you think about it, does that attitude really make sense?

If you should go to a foreign country and are not sure what the traffic laws are, it would be foolish to head out on the road while thinking it doesn't matter if you choose to follow none of them. You would soon be before a judge. You couldn't plead "I didn't know so I thought it wasn't important!" The judge would ask why you didn't bother to at least try to seek out the rules.

Conclusion

Now you may ask me, "with all the competing views, how can I begin to find the right path?" (Now if you ask me personally, I'll try to save you some time and say, "It's the Catholic Church." But since I presume you meant, "How do I search for the right path…?" read on). The answer is, you need to seek out what is true—which means discerning what is true as opposed to what pleases you or what you want to be true.

A lot of people stop at "What gives me pleasure" and never asks whether what feels good is actually good. People get caught up in destructive relationships, alcohol, drugs, etc. They can't see beyond the pleasure and thus can't see that they are not searching for what is truth. Self delusion and fear of losing what is safe can often lead to never beginning the search.

The truth can be described as, to say of what is, that it is; and to say of what is not, that it is not is to speak the truth. So that's the first step. Looking for what is true by seeing if it is what it claims to be. When a claim is made whether about atheism, pantheism, paganism, monotheistic faiths and Christian denominations, the question "Is it true?" must be asked concerning the claims by the group and the claims made about the group (remember, people often speak falsely about what they don't know).

A search may take a long time. God calls a person on His time, not at your convenience. (And yes, I absolutely believe God exists and loves you personally regardless of whether or not you know Him yet). But the fact that a person has not yet encountered God doesn't give him or her the right to quit searching and just say, "Close enough, I'll just settle for this."

Just remember that it is never right to say "It doesn't matter which one I pick or even if I pick none of them." If you honestly seek the truth and pray to God to lead you to Him, you will eventually meet Him.

Thoughts on Catholicism and Human Law

I would like to expand on something I wrote a few days ago concerning the concept of legitimate and illegitimate law. I hope in this day and age (unfortunately, you never know) most people would recognize that governments can and do create unjust laws (whether actual laws, judicial rulings and executive orders) which are made binding through force—not just in totalitarian nations, but right here in the US as well.

Realizing that even in the Western Nations (which are always held up as the paragon of freedom compared to the rest of the world, fair or not) the governments can and do create unjust laws is important. It shows that no state government is impeccable in creating laws (human laws, to distinguish from Divine Law and Natural Law)—even if our own party of preference is in command.

I think that with this understanding in mind, the Catholic perspective should be explored. A lot of accusations have been made about us, and we need to have a basic understanding on how the Church views the authority of the state and the human law it creates.

We're not anarchists. We don't hold that the adage, the government that governs best governs least. Nor do we hold that government is a necessary evil. When it works as it ought, government justly holds authority and must be heeded. On the other hand, Catholicism is not a proponent of Big Government. The authority of the state certainly has limits as to what it can do.

In the Catholic perspective, the purpose of government is ensuring the common good. However, the government is not itself the common good. It can only be a means to this end. The government does not have the authority to redefine what the common good is, and the burdens of the law must not be unequally proportioned—such as favoring your friends and harming your enemies. (See Summa Theologica I II Q 96 a4). Finally, the laws passed cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver.

This last point is important. While certain views of government exalt the power of the state, when the government decrees something it has no right to decree, the law it passes has no authority—much like if I were to pass a law that all the houses on my block have the obligation to pay me a 20% tax on their gross income. I would have no right to make such a law because I do not have the authority to even make a law. Maybe if I had my own private militia I could get away with it, but the law would have no authority on its own.

A government may decree a thing, but if the thing decreed goes beyond the authority of the government to decree, then the only way that the law can be binding is if the government uses force to carry out the law. There would be no moral  obligation to follow such a law.

When you see these principles, it becomes clear that sometimes the Church must necessarily be in opposition to certain acts of government but is not acting in a partisan manner in doing so.

The Church rejects the claim by a state that it can decide to change the definitions of what is good or evil. Thus when the state creates such legislation, she denies that the law has binding authority. If the law interferes with the ability to do good and avoid evil, then it is not a law at all. It is merely an act of coercion.

Thus the Church will challenge the state that decrees that it can make marriage anything other than between one man and one woman. The Church will challenge the state if it decrees that abortion is a "right." The Church will challenge the state if the state demands that employers violate their religious faith by paying for contraceptives.

When the state decrees such things, these laws lack the morally binding force that valid human law possesses. The government can use force to demand compliance—do it or be sued, locked up or dead.

Now while that threat of coercion may work on individuals within the Church, it doesn't work on the Church as a whole. The Church that recognizes the witness of martyrdom (which is not to be confused with the perversion of the term by those who blow themselves and others up to make a point).

Martyrdom in the Catholic sense says that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil—even to the point of dying rather than doing what God forbids. The Catholic faith, which says, " I would rather suffer as an innocent than to be guilty of doing what God forbids," does not accept the claims of the state to have the right to make good evil or evil good.

The reasons above also explain why the Church—contrary to the hopes of the media—will never permit abortion, woman priests, "gay marriage," contraception, or remarriage when the spouse of a pervious valid marriage is still alive. The Church is not an institution which arbitrarily makes up rules for Catholics to follow and can undo them whenever she likes. When God teaches us what is good or evil, the Catholic Church knows she does not have the authority to change that teaching.

When one understands these things, it becomes clear how the Church can be in opposition to the human laws of a government without being partisan. The Church can accept a government which seeks the true common good and does not seek to elevate itself to the greatest importance and does not seek to make laws it has no right or authority to make.

But it must seek to convert the government that seeks partisan gain for its supporters, that seeks to pass laws it has no right to pass.

This then is why the Catholic Church must sometimes be in opposition to our government.