How Catholic determination any more perfect than that of evangelicals?


#1

I was thinking about how we Catholics come to a conclusion about the religious canon we use. From what I understand, we first look at historical documents and claim that these historical documents show that there was one early Apostolic church set up by Christ. And then, following this, after believing that these texts and those of later early Christian writers are true historical accounts of early Christianity, we look at what Jesus has to say in these documents. Jesus founds an apostolic Church and gives it binding authority. The Church then, through this binding authority, is able to determine which texts are inspired, and which ones not.

For many Protestants who do not follow the historical model, the method is a little different for determining the canon. From what I understand, many Protestants just know inwardly that the books they read are the inspired Word of God, whereas when they read the deuterocanonical works, they claim that they are not inspired. In short, many a Protestant will approach the canon in faith alone, without the assistance of historical understanding.

My question is: In selecting our canon do we not first have to place great faith on our rational abilities to understand which texts (those now canonical, non-canonical, writings of Church Fathers and those of pagans) represent true history and which ones give a biased distortion of true history? And if we do not first begin our search for the canon by history, but instead by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, why would that Holy Spirit guide us any more or less than that which the Protestant claims to guide him in coming to the selection of their canon?

In any case, unless we can have perfect confidence that Christ personally founded a single Church (if he founded any church), we cannot really say with confidence that the Catholic Church has any given authority to discern what is the Word of God and what is not.

In short, I gather the Catholic model is as follows:

  1. Use reason and pray for the assistance of the Holy Spirit to begin to understand early Christianity as an historical series of events.
  2. Create an historical understaning of early Christianity
  3. The historical understanding shows that Christ founded a single Church, and that he gave it authority.
  4. The historical understanding shows that Church councils determined certain works to be canonical and inspired.
  5. Canon compiled

One evangelical model:

  1. Ask God to give you the Holy Spirit to discern which texts are canonical and which are not.
  2. God personally shows you what is inspired and what is not.

Both claim that the Holy Spirit guides one in coming to a canon. The Catholic view is that God gives man the reason to discern what is canon; whereas a Protestant view is that God personally shows one which is canon, since human reason is naturally imperfect. Just some thoughts.


#2

[quote=Madaglan]For many Protestants who do not follow the historical model, the method is a little different for determining the canon. From what I understand, many Protestants just know inwardly that the books they read are the inspired Word of God, whereas when they read the deuterocanonical works, they claim that they are not inspired. In short, many a Protestant will approach the canon in faith alone, without the assistance of historical understanding.
[/quote]

Sorry to jump in again. I know that everyone must be getting sick of me. Just ask, and I will stop. I feel like the protestant misrepresentation police.

This statement is very wrong. Protestants don’t just take a faith leap into the dark.

Please read the article below:
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=689

Thanks for the time,

Michael


#3

But if you reject the authority of the councils that confirmed the canon then how do you KNOW what really is the canon? Otherwise we might as well accept the Didache and all the rest.

I have to agree w/ St Augustine…becaus ethe Catholic Church says so…


#4

[quote=Madaglan]One evangelical model:

  1. Ask God to give you the Holy Spirit to discern which texts are canonical and which are not.
  2. God personally shows you what is inspired and what is not.

Both claim that the Holy Spirit guides one in coming to a canon. The Catholic view is that God gives man the reason to discern what is canon; whereas a Protestant view is that God personally shows one which is canon, since human reason is naturally imperfect. Just some thoughts.
[/quote]

I have actually heard this from Evangelicals but it definitely does NOT present the most sophisticated Protestant view of the matter, nor does it underpin the most “enlightened” formulations of “sola Scriptura.” For example, here was a lot of thrashing around for a few hundred years about whether the deuterocanonicals were going to be accepted by the Church as part of the canon.

Look at some other threads on these forums and you will find some more respectable defenses of SS.

I’m Catholic, BTW, and accept that view, but when I was a SS pre-Catholic, my view incorporated the early history of the Church as well. But I believed that once the canon was more-or-less agreed upon in the late 4th Century, the voice of the Church was no longer needed. (What WAS I thinking?)


#5

Yes, thank you for your responses. I do know that many of the Reformers pointed to different Fathers and what they did or did not accept as canonical, in additional to early unofficial canons (such as the Muratorian canon I believe). I’m sure that there’s gotta be a more sophisticated evangelical approach to the issue of canon…or at least I hope so for their sakes.


#6

The Catholic Church is a Divine Institution. Jesus was both God and man - a divine Person with a human nature. So likewise the Church is a divine institution, with a “human nature”. The Holy Spirit is the Divine part, and men are the human part.

When the Church speaks infallibly, it is an act of the Holy Ghost speaking through men. Just as the Holy Ghost used men to write the books of the Bible, so too does He inspire the Pope when he defines matters pertaining to the faith, or when he ratifies the decrees of a dogmatic council. Not everything a Pope does or says is infallible, but only those that are intended to be (which is rare). When a Pope is speaking as a private theologian, he may be right, or he may be wrong; but when he is difining a matter he is protected by the Holy Ghost from any possible error.

When the Church defines a matter - whether it be which books make up the canon of scripture, or the proper doctrine of the Eucharist - such statements are not the words of man, but of God. It is true that a particular matter may be studied in great detail before it is defined, but when it is defined the definition is God speaking through the Church.
Therefore, we beleive what the Church teaches on the authority of God who has revealed these truths, not because of rational arguments, or even history. There are always very good arguments that can be taken from reason and history to explain to non-Catholics why we beleive what we do, but our faith is not in human reason, nor history, but in God who has revealed these doctrines through the Church - “the manifold wisdom of God is made known… through the Church” (Eph. 3:10). “If he will not hear the Church” said our Lord, “let him be to thee as the heathen…” (Mt 18:17).

Protestants have no authority upon which to base their beliefs. All they have is their opinion. They may believe that the Bible is their authority, but even the authority of the Bible has been weakened by the many contradictory interpretations within Protestantism. The “reformers” rejected the magesterium of the Church (the councils) and Tradition, claiming that the “Bible alone” was their authority. Yet, without realizing it, they even destroyed the authority of the Bible through their private interpretation, since there are about as many different interpretations as there are those who interpret it. Therefore, when one person points to a verse to back up what they believe, another can point to a different verse to prove the opposite. Thus, the authority of the Bible is undermined, since their beliefs are only their “opinion” of what the Bible means.

With Catholics that is not the case. We can know the truth with 100% certainty by reading what the Councils have defined. We do not read the Church fathers to know what to believe, although we can learn much from them. We know what to beleive from the Church, and we point to the Church fathers to show that what we believe has always been believed.

In conclusion, as Catholics, our faith is based on the authority of God who has revealed the truth, through the Church, and not merely on our opinion, or on reason, or on history, although all of the above can be used to demonstrate, and to prove that what we believe is true. The following is the act of Faith Prayer:

“Oh. my God, I firmly believe that thou art one God in Three Divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I believe that thy Divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe these truths and all the other truths that thy Holy Catholic Church teaches, because thou hast revealed them who canst neither deceive, nor be deceived.”


#7

[quote=michaelp]Sorry to jump in again. I know that everyone must be getting sick of me. Just ask, and I will stop. I feel like the protestant misrepresentation police.

This statement is very wrong. Protestants don’t just take a faith leap into the dark.

Please read the article below:
bible.org/page.asp?page_id=689

Thanks for the time,

Michael
[/quote]

Interesting article.

A big chunk of the article would lead me to think that the author (at least) believed in the authority of “the church” to determine the cannon up the 4th century. That would seem problematic to me if I were protestant.

Seems I’ve heard the “The Bible Answer Man” argue that the books of scripture provide there own cannonicity (is that a word) in that they must not contradict themselves, and the cannon could be recreated in its current form with no help for the historical cannon. Never seemed very plausible to me (we can’t even agree what verses mean much less that they are not in conflict from one book to another). I always thought it was an attempt to avoid any appeal to Church history because it migth some how give some authority back to “Catholic” Church

Chuck


#8

Originally Quoted by RSiscoe:

In conclusion, as Catholics, our faith is based on the authority of God who has revealed the truth, through the Church, and not merely on our opinion, or on reason, or on history, although all of the above can be used to demonstrate, and to prove that what we believe is true. The following is the act of Faith Prayer:

I can see where you’re coming from. However, my real concern is accepting the foundation: how do we know that Christ founded a Church at all? It seems self-evident to us today, since we trust in the accuracy of the gospels; but how do we know that we can trust the Catholic Church [of Rome] and the gospel accounts it gives us. How do we know that what we consider the Church is not some breakoff schism from the 11th century? How do we even know that Christ founded a Church? We base our Catholic beliefs on what others tell us, and what the history books say. But who is to say that these two are completely correct? How do we know that the claimed authority is not self-imposed? Wouldn’t it be easier if God personally (instead of an human authority) tell us religious truths to our hearts through the Holy Spirit, as evangelicals suggest?

I mean, in theory, it’s possible, though not likely, that Jesus never founded a Church–that the apostles and disciples simply added the story of Christ founding a Church (and the authority that goes along with it)–presuming that’s what Christ would have done. I do not advocate this view; but many of the Jesus Seminar do advocate this view. Many liberal scholars today, like those in the Jesus Seminar, hold that, rather than one orthodox church in early Christianity, that there were many churches of equal claims to having known Christ personally–having heard and witnessed him. Eventually these churches were either lost to time or persecuted until destruction.

In a sense, we presuppose that the Church was founded by Christ, and that the documents the Church presents are accurate portrayals. It is not much dissimiliar from the evangelicals who presuppose that the New Testament works are inspired, often without a Magisterium to guide their decision. That’s how I see it at least.

I’m not trying to be heretical here; I’m just trying to open up different avenues of thinking, so that we can come to some conclusions. I honestly think this is an important subject today when so many people are looking at apocryphal works on equal status as the canonical works.


#9

I think we also have to remember that for 1100 years at least the Catholic Church (or those within it) wrote the history books. Very much like the past few hundred years how it has been the Protestants who have been writing the history books, at least in the English tradition. And we know the anti-Catholicism that results from that historical tradition! Just pick up a book written in English last century on the Inquisitions. :slight_smile:


#10

[quote=clmowry]Seems I’ve heard the “The Bible Answer Man” argue that the books of scripture provide there own cannonicity (is that a word) in that they must not contradict themselves, and the cannon could be recreated in its current form with no help for the historical cannon.
[/quote]

Then isn’t it convenient for the Bible Answer Man that they never had to recreate the canon from scratch, since the Catholic Church did it for them. :wink:
God bless you,
Paul


#11

Dear Madaglen,

I understand your question/concern. You seem to be wondering if the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. It is true that one must believe in the Church before they will submit to the Church.

The first thing I would recommend is to pray a little prayer each day. This is the pray: “God, please grant me the grace of greater faith, and teach me to trust you more”. Try to get in the habbit of praying that prayer each day, or several times per day. Maybe you could pray it before each meal, or before you go to bed, or some other fixed times throughout the day.

We live in a day of little faith. Liberal heretics are everywhere and are confusing many people. I do not fault you for your questions. I see you as a victim of these very evil men.

The good new is, there is so much evidence to support the claims of the Catholic Church, that any person of good will should have no problem seeing it (of course we must always hope in God and pray for His assistance).

One thing that really impressed me when I first started studying Church history (while still a Protestant) was apostolic succession. I found the subject fascinating. Apostolic succession is the unbroken sucession of Bishops from the apostles down to the Bishops of our day. For a person to be ordained Bishop, they must be ordained by one who is already a Bishop, as only a Bishop has the power to ordain another Bishop. The first Bishops were the apostles. There has been an unbroken line of sucessors of the apostles right up to our day - link by link in an unbroken line. Every Catholic Priest can also be traced by to one of the apostles, since Priests are also ordained by a Bishop. Apostolic succession is clearly shown in the bible as well as in the writings of the early Church fathers. Although apostolic succession in and of itself doesn’t prove anything, I personally found it very interesting.

Can you ever know for sure that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be? I believe the answer to that question is YES, since I know it for sure. If I can know it with 100% certainty, then you can as well. But this will only happen with God’s help. That is why it is important for you to begin saying that prayer.

The reason I recommend that prayer so highly is because that is a prayer I began saying many years ago, before I was a Catholic. A lot of good came to me from that prayer. Jesus said “ask and you shall receive”. If you are faithful in asking, God will be faithful in answering. But sometimes God requires perseverance. That is why you must make a habit of saying that prayer. Maybe the prayer will be answer in a day, maybe in a year, or maybe longer, but if you are faithful in saying that prayer, one day I know you will have a very great faith.

One more thing: I would also encourage you to begin reading older Catholic materials, such as papal encyclicals and catechisms. I have found the older Catechisms and encyclicals much clearer than more modern ones; and for God’s sake (and your own) avoid the liberal heretics. They are the enemies of God and man. They are the ones the Bible speaks of as “deceiving and being deceived”. Avoid them as you would a plague.


#12

[quote=clmowry]Interesting article.

A big chunk of the article would lead me to think that the author (at least) believed in the authority of “the church” to determine the cannon up the 4th century. That would seem problematic to me if I were protestant.

[/quote]

That would indeed be very problematic. If they believed the Church “had” that authority up to the 4th century A.D., then why stop there? Why not believe that the Church still had that authority in the 5th, 12th or 20th centuries as well?

Gerry :slight_smile:


#13

[quote=Madaglan]I think we also have to remember that for 1100 years at least the Catholic Church (or those within it) wrote the history books. Very much like the past few hundred years how it has been the Protestants who have been writing the history books, at least in the English tradition. And we know the anti-Catholicism that results from that historical tradition! Just pick up a book written in English last century on the Inquisitions. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

What I have found much more interesting than history books, is actualy historical documents. As you allude to, history books are only as reliable as their author, and the authors usually have an agenda, or at least a bias. The historical documents (writings from those times) are much better. Not only are they very interesting, but they allow us to see things the way they were at the time.


#14

Originally Quoted by RSiscoe:

What I have found much more interesting than history books, is actualy historical documents. As you allude to, history books are only as reliable as their author, and the authors usually have an agenda, or at least a bias. The historical documents (writings from those times) are much better. Not only are they very interesting, but they allow us to see things the way they were at the time.

You mean like the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc? If so, that’s great you’re reading them; however, I do still have concerns even with them.

You are very correct that history books are only reliable according to their author.

However, in additoinal to the problems with historical books of the present, we also must recognize that the ancient works may also have problems that we need to address.

We know that many the history books we read today were first written and published within the past hundred years or so–during a time in which people have the ability to recognize and strike out any changes that have been made. Howver, there are numerous problems in reading the works of ancient writers. For one, oftentimes there have been interpolations added by later copiers of the work. The works these early copiers copied were not as well scrutinized by the public as they are today. Oftentimes people would change a text to lend support to certain views.

One passage in Josephus’ Antiquities concerning Jesus is widely recognized as an interpolation (meaning that information about Jesus was added to the original text.). I remember when I read the introduction to the letters of Ignatius that the editor mentioned that there are interpolations in his epistles–meaning again that later writers added to the original work. If we can get past that, we still have to recognize that every writer back then had an agenda. For the early Christians it was to spread the gospel message they claimed to have received from God, and to replace the pagan forms of worship with Christian worship.

While interpolations and additions may not be as widespread as some critics of orthodox forms of Christianity suggest, I think we nontheless have to at least understand that the history we receive of Christianity is the history we receive from the lens of the Christians themselves.

Does this mean that I do not trust anything I read from early historical documents? No, of course not. Mark Twain once said that, even if an individual were to create an autobiography and lie the entire way through, the readers would, through reading in between the lines and comparing that autobiography with other sources, would end up with a fairly good understanding of that individual. For this reason I think we can in fact know a little about early Christian history–despite the many missing works of other Christian and quasi-Christian groups.

One concern I have is that many people (including myself) do not always recognize that many of the facts which go into historical documents are interpretive, not exact replications. Different people notice different aspects of an event, and oftentimes people describe things in the most succinct yet captivating way possible. For example, in the New Testament we read the story of the centurion who comes to Jesus to request the healing of his young servant. In Matthew we read that the centurion himself speaks with Jesus. However, in Luke we read that the centurion sends some Jewish elders to speak with Jesus, while he the centurion remains behind at home. It is quite possible that Matthew was just making things a bit more concise and easier to understand by having the centurion directly speak with Jesus; whereas Luke was more concerned about the exact details.

In any case, oftentimes historical truth appears less like a clear landscape portrait and more like a colorful impressionistic painting. That’s my experience anyhow :cool:


#15

Why do Catholics believe that their Church is the one true Church of Jesus Christ? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to believe that Christ’s true Church is a spiritual union of all Christian denominations?

Catholics believe that theirs is the one true Church of Jesus Christ, firstly, because theirs is the only Christian Church that goes back in history to the time of Christ; secondly, because theirs is the only Christian Church which possesses the invincible unity, the intrinsic holiness, the continual universality and the indisputable apostolicity which Christ said would distinguish His true Church; and thirdly, because the Apostles and primitive Church Fathers, who certainly were members of Christ’s true Church, all professed membership in this same Catholic Church (See Apostles’ Creed and the Primitive Christian letters). Wrote Ignatius of Antioch, illustrious Church Father of the first century: “Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.” Our Lord said: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd”, yet it is well known that the various Christian denominations cannot agree on what Christ actually taught. Since Christ roundly condemned interdenominationalism (“And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” Mark 3:25), Catholics cannot believe that He would ever sanction it in His Church.:blessyou:


#16

Madaglan, either God ensured 100% that some organisaiton has taught the truth correctly from the beginning-after his death or we are fools to believe in Christianity, it is as simple as that.

If God has not ensured 100%, then how in the world do we know what is true and not true, becasue ultimatley we must accept or deny the words of men long since dead.

If an orgnisation does not have 100% certainty, then it is impossible to know when where and what time God changed vehicles. If we can’t know exactly when and where he changed we can not know what teaching is correct.

My friend it is as simple as that, that is what returned me to the Catholic Church, my realisation that it is the only rational choice based on faith and objectivity. (of course I like to believe that God bought me back in so to speak)

In Christ

Tim


#17

[quote=Madaglan]You mean like the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc? If so, that’s great you’re reading them; however, I do still have concerns even with them.

You are very correct that history books are only reliable according to their author.

However, in additoinal to the problems with historical books of the present, we also must recognize that the ancient works may also have problems that we need to address.

We know that many the history books we read today were first written and published within the past hundred years or so–during a time in which people have the ability to recognize and strike out any changes that have been made. Howver, there are numerous problems in reading the works of ancient writers. For one, oftentimes there have been interpolations added by later copiers of the work. The works these early copiers copied were not as well scrutinized by the public as they are today. Oftentimes people would change a text to lend support to certain views.
[/quote]

Do you have any evidence of that? Or is it merely your assumption? You seem to believe what the liberal heretics now claim, but judge the tree by its fruits. Look at the lives of these men, not only their heresies, but their morally corrupt lives as well. These people have no faith, they are in a state of total confusion, and they are usually very corrupt morally. Look at the inclination of their will. What I mean is, they usually seem very willing to believe things contrary to the faith, and not willing to believe what has always been believed. Again, judge the tree by its fruit. They are of bad will. Even when they are refuted, with strong evidence, they usually hold fast to their error. This again is worth taking notice of as it shows the inclination of their will to believe those things that are contrary to the faith.

[quote=]One passage in Josephus’ Antiquities concerning Jesus is widely recognized as an interpolation (meaning that information about Jesus was added to the original text.). I remember when I read the introduction to the letters of Ignatius that the editor mentioned that there are interpolations in his epistles–meaning again that later writers added to the original work. If we can get past that, we still have to recognize that every writer back then had an agenda.
[/quote]

Yes, their agenda was to defend the Church against heretics, and to stand up for the truth. That is a good agenda. What is the agenda of the liberals today? It is to raise questions in hopes of undermining the truth. That is their agenda!

continue…


#18

[quote=] For the early Christians it was to spread the gospel message they* claimed* to have received from God, and to replace the pagan forms of worship with Christian worship.

While interpolations and additions may not be as widespread as some critics of orthodox forms of Christianity suggest, I think we nontheless have to at least understand that the history we receive of Christianity is the history we receive from the lens of the Christians themselves.
[/quote]

How did it come to pass that we now have such a lack of trust in the Fathers? Catholics have always pointed to the Fathers of the Church as very holy men who were greatly enlightened (which is true), yet today, they are looked upon with suspicion? From whence camest this? From liberalism! Liberalism is the plague of our day. They do not have the truth, and cannot see the truth. There is a force to the truth that makes it recognizable, in and of itself. When a person has the supernatural gift of faith, they are able to “see” with their intellect so as to perceive the truth; when one has no faith (such as the liberals), they are intellectually “blind”. The faith is as the pupil of the intellect, and without it one is blind. Faith is a supernatural gift, which is why we must ask God for it.

[quote=]One concern I have is that many people (including myself) do not always recognize that many of the facts which go into historical documents are interpretive, not exact replications. Different people notice different aspects of an event, and oftentimes people describe things in the most succinct yet captivating way possible. For example, in the New Testament we read the story of the centurion who comes to Jesus to request the healing of his young servant. In Matthew we read that the centurion himself speaks with Jesus. However, in Luke we read that the centurion sends some Jewish elders to speak with Jesus, while he the centurion remains behind at home. It is quite possible that Matthew was just making things a bit more concise and easier to understand by having the centurion directly speak with Jesus; whereas Luke was more concerned about the exact details.
[/quote]

I believe that an apparent contradiction in the bible is merely a test of our faith, purposefully put there by God. Jesus did test people’s faith, such as in John 6 when He told the disciples they must eat His Flesh and Drink His blood. That was a test. Earlier in the 6th chapter of John, when those present asked what "work they must do to be saved (vs. 29), Jesus told them the work they were to do was to believe in Him. They all claimed to believe at the time, but when he gave them a hard teaching (later in the chapter) “many left him and walked no more with Him”. He tested their faith and they failed. I believe any apparent contradiction is the same thing: a test of our faith; and any apparent contradiction can almost always be explained.

[quote=]In any case, oftentimes historical truth appears less like a clear landscape portrait and more like a colorful impressionistic painting. That’s my experience anyhow :cool:
[/quote]

Reading good materials, and praying for the grace of greater faith is the answer. You have two choices: you can either come to believe in the Church, or you can be “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine”, as the liberals are. Would you rather have a solid faith, or be in a state of confusion? You do have a choice. But the former takes prayer and humility; the later only takes pride and lack of faith.


#19

I may just have a simple way of looking at things, but it seems that
the question that is at the bottom of all the canon talk is about
whether or not a Church was established by Christ. It’s about a
hesitancy in trusting the Church. And that hesitancy creates a distrust of who has authority in the determination of the canon.

How much more evidence is required so that people will be convinced and ‘let go’. How much historical documentation and writings of the early church fathers, and scripture references are required to be ‘proof positive’? Considering that Protestantism wasn’t in existence until the 1500’s, then I wonder why all of the doubt?
Didn’t Ignatius of Antioch give the Christian Church the name “Catholic” as early as 350 A.D.? Don’t we have numerous writings from the early christians (Fathers) which would indicate that the Church was founded by Christ and was a continual, living entity (being Christ in the world)? How many documents must be presented? The Catholic Church wrote (inspired men), copied, and spread the Gospel long before any Reformers existed.
Where are documents proving that an early Evangelical church existed? Where are documents and writings that prove that Evangelical-type doctrines and beliefs were present in the early church? No where to be found. The early church was distinctly Catholic. Does it matter so much that there was some debate among early Catholics, or that it took time to decide the canon and close it…when all of history shows that a church was in existence from the time of its birth at Pentecost?
How much proof is required for Protestants to trust that Christ knew what he was doing when he began his Church? When is okay to let go and just simply trust in Him and believe. Christ is the Church. Love Jesus? Know His Church.


#20

[quote=Madaglen] [In] the New Testament we read the story of the centurion who comes to Jesus to request the healing of his young servant. In Matthew we read that the centurion himself speaks with Jesus. However, in Luke we read that the centurion sends some Jewish elders to speak with Jesus, while he the centurion remains behind at home. It is quite possible that Matthew was just making things a bit more concise and easier to understand by having the centurion directly speak with Jesus; whereas Luke was more concerned about the exact details.
[/quote]

Madaglen,

I just read the account of the centurion. Instead of me giving an explanation, I am going to ask you to try and explain it. Remember how we discussed the inclination of the will? Liberals are willing (and desirous) to believe things contrary to the faith, whereas the will of a true Catholics is not bent in that direction? Well, I am going to ask you to shift your will, and try to reconcile the two accounts. Read them and try to explain how they can both be true. I think you are smart enough to figure this one out.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.