 |
 |
The Foundations of Christian Knowledge
This section assumes that you agree with most Christian teachings, and would like to better understand the process by which we know these teachings to be true.
Natural Philosophy (Reason)
We can learn about God through Natural Philosophy. We are able to learn about the greatness of God, in all ways including love. We are able to understand that the law of love applies to us. However, we lose many things when using only Philosophy to learn about God. We don't learn about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We don't learn about the Incarnation, and how Jesus is the interface between us and God. Even though we can learn about the love of God, Philosophy does not show us the love of God expressed. For these things and many others, we need Scripture.
Scripture (Revelation)
We have learned much about God from Scripture, much more than we ever can learn from Philosophy, so by example we have learned that Scripture is necessary to understand as much as possible about God. However, how do we know that Scripture itself is reliable? It does appear on textual analysis to be the work of honest, careful men, who were writing history, not myth. However, in order to defend the authenticity of the work, we must also know who wrote it, and when, to verify that they were close enough to the actual event to know what they were talking about. For this, we rely on Tradition.
Tradition
Tradition in this context is a theological term which means the deposit of knowledge preserved by the Church that is not contained in Scripture. It does not mean practices or beliefs of the Church that developed over time. That is, it is not a tradition like painting eggs at Easter is a tradition. It is Tradition in the sense that we remember who wrote the New Testament, because of the information that the Church Fathers' left us. Who wrote the New Testament is a key part of Tradition, but from Tradition we also get teachings such as the perpetual virginity of Mary. Since we use Tradition to defend the authenticity of the New Testament, we implicitly asserted that we can use Tradition to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary. Reason, Scripture, and Tradition all have a difficulty, though. How do we know that we are understanding any of them correctly? If you have spent any time arguing the truth of Christianity with others, you have learned that the same passage can have wildly different interpretations to different people. In many cases, both people in the argument are well meaning, believing Christians, yet their difference of opinion leads to a dramatically different understanding of God. Things get even worse when discussing philosophy. It is not that difficult to find two philosophers with deeply held beliefs that are exactly opposite. To understand which person's beliefs corresponds to actual truth, we need some authority, some body which can resolve disputes. This authority is the Church.
Church (Majesterium)
We have come to the understanding that the Church is necessary to resolve differences of opinion regarding the content of Christian knowledge. However, which church? Let us look at what Scripture and Tradition tells us.
In the following verses, we see Jesus giving authority to humans. Authority is given to teach and cast out demons (or other evil).
As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen. He said to them, "Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men." (Mt 4:18-19). (All of the apostles were called in this way.)
After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others whom he sent ahead of him in pairs to every town and place to visit (Lk 10:1). ... The seventy-two returned rejoicing, and said, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name." (Lk 10:17)
Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Mt 28:18)
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (Jn 20:22-23, Mt 18:18 is similar).
In the next two versus, we see Jesus giving special authority to Peter. Peter is the rock, upon which Jesus will build his Church.
He [Jesus] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt 16:15-19)
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." (Jn 21:15-17)
We also learn that Peter (and the other apostles) are not like other Earthly leaders. Even though they have power, power is not their primary purpose. Service is their primary purpose.
Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He [Jesus] said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at the table? I am among you as the one who serves. It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." (Lk 22:24-32)
As we proceed forward in the New Testament, we see the the Apostles taking the authority that Jesus gave to them, and granting it to others. In Acts 1:15-26 the Apostles, led by Peter, appointed a replacement for the traitor Judas. In Acts 6:1-7, the apostles appoint assistants (priests) to help with the work of the Church. The apostles confirm the new priests by praying and laying on of the hands, which is how priests are ordained to this day. In the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29), Paul, Barnabus, and others went up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters to ask whether Christians must be Jews first. That is, must Christians follow the Jewish law? The council of apostles (led by Peter and James) decided, on their own authority, that the answer is no. They then appointed representatives to carry this message to the more distant churches. Note also here that even though Paul was called directly by Jesus in a vision (Gal 1:11-24, I Cor 15:8-10), he submits to the authority of the apostles.
After the period of Acts, we have the period of the early church. During this time, we have the writings of the church fathers. These fathers consistently defended the authority of Rome in general and the bishop of Rome (the pope) in specific. We see then that the authority was transferred from Jesus to Peter (closely followed by the other apostles) to the future popes (closely followed by the future bishops) in a smooth processes. We then realize that the church that Jesus founded still exists today. It is the Catholic Church, which is led by the pope. Contrary to standard Protestant belief, there was no period when there was no authority in the Church. The church that they imagine to have restored never actually existed, at least until the Protestant Reformation.
Eastern Orthodox Christians, which broke off from Rome in the great Schism (officially in 1054 AD, unofficially the separation took many centuries), typically believe that the pope has a role of honor, but not one of authority. This is more reasonable that the Protestant view, but it is not consistent with the above evidence, especially the evidence from Tradition.
Realize that as there must be a final authority on truth in the world (the Church), there must also be a final authority on truth in the Church (the pope). To give each bishop equal and final authority would lead to no authority. This problem is realized to various degrees in both Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches. Throughout history, there have always been bishops (or independent theologians) who bent or broke doctrine and had to be reined in by the pope. You might think that truth could be determined by a vote among the bishops, but then you realize that whoever picks the bishops is the one with the power. The pope has always had the ability to remove bishops. Bishops have been appointed in the past by various means, but they are currently appointed by the pope.
However, how do we know that the Church has been faithful to its mission? Just because it was given a mission by Jesus does not mean that it has been true to it. In this matter, as in all matters, the Church relies upon God.
God
If the message of Scripture was lost, the message of Jesus would be lost. However, Jesus did not come only for the benefit of 1st century Jews. Jesus came for the benefit of the whole world, for all time (Mt 28:18-20, Is. 59:21). That is, if the Church failed to teach the message of Jesus correctly, a substantial part of God's efforts would be nullified. God will not allow the corruption of God's efforts, and therefore will not allow the corruption of God's message. If corruption is allowed to begin, it would only grow with time. More specifically, the Holy Spirit (the guide to truth), prevents the Church from making any error which weakens or distorts Jesus's message.
Which parts of Jesus's message are important, understood, and certain? The Church labels these as dogmas. Dogmas are those teachings which the Church asserts, by the power of the Holy Spirit, are infallibly true.
Infallibility
Infallibility is one of the most misunderstood teachings of Catholicism. Many opponents of Catholic Christianity do not try very hard to understand it properly, because it is easier to contradict a false teaching than a true one. The official, summarized teaching is available in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 874-896. What must be understood is that the infallibility teaching is very restrictive. The pope is only infallible when teaching ex cathedra (from the chair), or by the authority of the office of St. Peter, on issues of faith and morals. The teaching must be declared to be binding to the whole Church, typically in an encyclical (church-wide letter). The pope is not infallible in his everyday life, when speaking as a private theologian, or when guiding a subset of the church. Even though the letter may be long, the infallible part typically consists of only a few sentences. Also, you must realize that infallibility also implies unchangeability. Future popes are not free to contradict the infallible statements of previous popes. Teachings that are understood to be true by the whole Church are often not declared as binding by the pope until a heresy (false teaching) appears that requires the pope to act against it. Most commonly, the true teaching is accepted by all for centuries before the heresy develops. Infallible teachings can also be declared as the result of an ecumenical (church-wide) council. Even though these declarations are typically argued about and written by bishops, the council is not ecumenical unless the pope lends his authority to the deliberations.
As explained above, the rules for determining which statements are infallible are very strict. This leads for a tendency in liberal theologians to attempt to downgrade any teaching that they disagree with to a not infallible statement. This tendency must be resisted. What must be realized is that you will never be in a dangerous state by following the teachings of the Church, but it is very easy to enter a dangerous state by contradicting the teachings of the Church. You would be advised to error on the side of caution when picking which teachings are only doctrines (teachings) and not dogmas (infallible truths). Erring on the side of caution typically means doing a fairly exhaustive search of Church teachings, past and present, and determining whether or not the requirements for infallibility have been met. If the requirements for infallibility have not been met, you must still look to see whether or not there has been widespread agreement in the Church for most of its history. Going against non-infallible Church history is less of a danger than going against infallibility, but it is typically still problematic.
This is not to say that the Church (or the pope) does not make mistakes. Different people put forth different ideas about what mistakes the Church has made, but we all agree that the Church has made mistakes, some of them severe. What this states is that when the Church claims to be infallible it is, and when it does not claim to be infallible, it is not.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Ludwig Ott, is a good source for understanding which teachings on faith are dogmas, and which are not. Each section is labeled with its grade of theological certainty. The labels are defined in the introduction, section 8. In general, only the appropriately marked headings are considered infallible, not Ott's explanatory text. Note that there are also dogmas that are supported more by Tradition than Scripture (such as the perpetual virginity of Mary), and dogmas that are founded more in reason than Scripture (such as the Trinity). Even though we reached an understanding of dogma by realizing that God would not allow the corruption of Scripture, dogmas are also legitimate when they are founded in Tradition or Reason. If the Church could declare any falsity as dogma, all teachings of the church would be rendered invalid. We do not have the freedom to pick and choose among the dogmas based upon their foundation. I have not found a good source that lists the moral dogmas. I believe this is because until the modern age, most Christians agreed on what is good moral behavior and what is not, so there has not been as much need for the pope to make declarations.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a comprehensive summary of the teachings of the Church, both faith and morals, but does not organize them by level of certainty. As stated above, though, you will never be in a dangerous state by following the Catechism, but you can easily enter a dangerous state by going against various bits of it. As John Paul II wrote in his introduction to the Catechism, it is a "sure norm for the teaching of the faith."
For the most part the Catechism does not defend the teachings of the Church, it merely states them. If you are a Protestant, and have the usual Protestant objections to Catholicism (in addition to authority, which is covered above), I recommend that you look at Catholic Answers, Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, by David B. Currie, and Catholic Christianity, by Peter Kreeft. I find that the most common difficulty when debating Protestants in that they state the teachings of the Church incorrectly, and then argue against that false teaching. After using these sources, you may not agree with the Catholic Church, but at least you will know what they actually teach.
Postscript
I am fallible, my determination that the church can be infallible is fallible. How then, can we be sure that the Catholic Church is ever infallible?
1) I am (You are) reasonably accurate.
2) I (you) believe the church to be correct most of the time.
3) The Church claims itself to be infallible on many issues.
4) If the Church claims itself to be infallible, in must be either 100% correct, or 100% wrong. To quote Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity, Chapter 7, section 14, "If the Catholic Church does not have the infallible authority that she claims, then she is the most arrogant and blasphemous of all churches, a false prophet saying 'thus says the Lord' for mere human opinions"
5) I am (You are) reasonably accurate, so the church is not 100% wrong.
6) The Church is infallible when it claims to be.
In essence, we use our partial understanding of the Church and a contradiction to bootstrap ourselves into an understanding of infallibility. However you look at it, though, the individual is the weak link in this process. I believe 1) for myself, but I do not believe it for everyone. Because of 4) though, we can be certain in general that the Church is 100% correct or 100% wrong. There is no other option.
Postscript II
Above, I use Reason, Tradition, and Scripture to derive the authority of the Church, and I then state that we can only understand Reason, Tradition, and Scripture properly with the authority of Church. This has the feel of a circular argument. In actually, the argument is not a circle, but a spiral staircase. A moderate understanding of Reason, Tradition, and Scripture leads to a good understanding of the Church, which leads to a much better understanding of Reason, Tradition, and Scripture.
This page was last changed on 200703/10