The Hidden Wholeness of Providence

There are three concepts that have recently helped me to relax, even in the midst of the work I pursue. My problem is articulated well by what Fr. John Hardon, S.J., the prolific writer and catechist said on his death bed:

"It's just that there's so much yet to be done."

I fear the judgment. It's a daily motivation. I am scared that I will hear God say to me (when my life is past) what he said to the servant who took the talent his master gave him, and later returned it whole but not multiplied:

Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 25).

There are other reasons I could end up in hell, but getting done what seems to have been placed before me has always been the compulsion.

The three concepts that have been of some help with mediating this obsession are:

1. The Hidden Wholeness
2. The Scandal of the Particular
3. The Importance of Emptiness

These ideas were part of a series of meditations given by Msgr. John Zenz, Episcopal Vicar for the Northwest Region of the Archdiocese of Detroit, at St. James parish in December 2006. Msgr. Zenz is a particularly brilliant and humble man, whose joy in Christ is evidenced by this ability to quote from memory the Gospel Reading during Mass. A talent multiplied I think as he seems to always be looking toward the light, like the picture to the right taken at a recent conference. (Which reminds me. There's a reason the Bible describes Jesus as sitting to God's "right" hand and not his "left." --- Bobby Hesley)

The Hidden Wholeness
(This paragraph revised 4/11/07)
I choose NOT to use the article "a" as in the popular book title A Hidden Wholeness by Quaker Christian Parker J. Palmer. Palmer cites Thomas Merton as using the "a" as well. When I Googled "Hidden Wholeness" this morning I was surprised by the number of times his book on "A Hidden Wholeness" appeared. As Mr. Palmer explained to me (in a 4/11/07 email) that he prefers the article "a" and cites Thomas Merton's essay "Hagia Sophia" -- choosing to follow Merton's lead:

There is in all visible things an invisible, fecundity, a dimmed light, a meek namelessness, a hidden wholeness. This mysterious Unity and Integrity is Wisdom, The Mother of all, Natura naturans (nature ding what nature does). (Thomas P. McDonnell, ed., A Thomas Merton Reader. New York: Doubleday, 1989. p. 506. Thanks (!) to Mr. Parker for the quote and citation.)

Using the article "the" as Msgr. Zens does, and which I prefer, I do not think I write about something significantly different. Perhaps Merton was trying to "soft-pedal" monotheistic theology by using the "a". Normally "a" suggests that there are "others" -- whereas "the" suggests "one and only." But in context, Merton does indeed intimidate a "one and only." His phrase:

...an invisible, fecundity, a dimmed light, a meek namelessness, a hidden wholeness. This mysterious Unity and Integrity...

bespeaks of ONE (Unity and Integrity), and not "a" as in "one of many." From Merton's poetic style, and indeed from any perspective that mankind can muster, God's integrity is so far beyond our conception that "a" may be appropriate -- as in "a-priori".

It might be better, however, to call what we're discussing "The Hidden Wholeness of Providence." It's not "a" wholeness of "self" that we're seeking but "THE" wholeness of "God." But it's really not seeking to be one with God, but rather being aware that the wholeness of who God (and the being of the universe) and we are is hidden from us. As Fr. Benedict Groschel might say:

"It's a mystery. Accept it. You ain't going to figure it out! Only God understands it; and he's not going to explain it to you. Because, if he did, you wouldn't understand a word he said. So relax."

The Hidden Wholeness reminds me that who I am and what I try to do everyday is part of a wholeness of God's designs that are hidden from me. I will never know, while here on Earth, what total purpose my life and activities have (like writing this blog). But I can trust that they are purposeful and helpful to some Providential End.

Scandal of the Particular
One of the most egregious collections of linguistic fallacies found in modern communication falls under the category of missing evidence. These are over generalizations of truth based on one (or fewer) event. I do it all the time. I enjoy an esoteric book and I think everyone will love it, even my relatives who generally don't like to read. This blog entry is another example. No one is going to read this (except my friend Alan Hartwick who I'm going to tell about it), but in my arrogance I have fallen prey to the scandal of the particular.

Importance of Emptiness

I am always trying to be whole. I want to feel satisfied, content, complete, whole. I want to find myself, be acknowledged, and generally feel important. I want my efforts at multiplying my talents to be lauded here on Earth as much as I hope God will bless me for my obedience when I get to heaven.

But the fact is, when it comes to the backdrop of eternity, I know nothing. And it is that lack of wholeness, that emptiness that I need to embrace as part of my wholeness. I have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. But compared to what there is to know my brain, maximized to its capacity, will only brush the surface of practically nothing. It is this reality of knowing next to nothing that makes the atheist's omniscient claim "there is no God" so ludicrous. (The Hubble Telescope picture at the top of this post is a picture that shows galaxies from 1 to 10 billion light years from Earth. That means that to get there we'd have to travel at the speed of 334,800,000 miles-per-hour for 10,000,000,000 years.)

Will the omniscient ones among you please file out of the room to the left? We have an educational field-trip we want you to take. Yes, it will take a long time.

So, be satisfied man with what God has given you. Be content with where you are planted. Just don't be too satisfied or content. You have some talents to multiply or you'll end up in hell.

Gotta get back to work....on my own wholeness.

Saddam Execution "Tragic"

I come from a background (Evangelical) that embraced the death penalty for certain horrific crimes as a social deterrent.

Now, as a Catholic, I have promised to support the Church's teachings, which is very clearly against what I formerly held to be just. Certainly, I reasoned, God took lives for horrific deeds.

But that is precisely the difference that my mind needed to embrace, and as a Catholic I have been forced to think much more critically.

Below is the text from a CNN report that explains well the Catholic Church's position. And I uphold it. Not so much out of a gut understanding, but because I love Christ and the Church he established, and trust the Holy Spirit's leading in matters of faith and morals. And yes, in the minutes before Saddam's execution I prayed for his salvation. I wanted to see him in heaven, and know that God's grace has no bounds. And who knows, perhaps that did happen.

Eternity will tell.

--------

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican on Saturday denounced Saddam Hussein's execution as "tragic" and said it risked fueling revenge and new violence in Iraq.

"An execution is always tragic news, reason for sadness, even in the case of a person who is guilty of grave crimes," the Holy See's spokesman, Rev. Federico Lombardi, said in a statement released by the Vatican press office.

Earlier in the morning, Lombardi made similar comments on Vatican Radio.

"The position of the Catholic Church — against the death penalty — has been reiterated many times," the spokesman said in the statement, referring to the Vatican's overall opposition to capital punishment.

"Killing the guilty one is not the way to rebuild justice and reconcile society," the spokesman said. "On the contrary, there is the risk that the spirit of revenge is fueled and that the seeds of new violence are sown."

"In this dark time in the life of the Iraq people, one can only hope that all leaders truly make every effort so that in a dramatic situation glimmers of reconciliation and of peace finally can be seen," Lombardi said.

The Vatican's top official for dialogue between religions, Cardinal Paul Poupard, said: "We pray to the Lord and for the dead and the living so that this will not become an occasion for new violence."

"We are always sad when men take lives which belong to the Lord," Poupard told the Italian news agency ANSA.

In an interview published in an Italian daily earlier in the week, the Vatican's top prelate for justice issues, Cardinal Renato Martino, said executing Saddam would mean punishing "a crime with another crime."

In one of the late Pope John Paul II's encyclicals, "Evangelium Vitae" (The Gospel of Life) in 1995, the pontiff laid out the Catholic Church's stance against capital punishment, saying that in a modern world, with improved prison systems, cases in which the death penalty could be justified were "practically nonexistent." The staunch opposition was reiterated in 1997, in the Church's updated catechism, a compendium of Church doctrine.

Nectar in a Sieve

Nectar in a Sieve has affected me deeply, although I am familiar first hand with the life described in it. Although I am a westerner, born and raised in the U.S. Midwest, white, upper-middle class, well-educated, and Christian -- I know something of India -- and know that the spirit and essence of this story is as true as anything real. It is of immeasurable value.

L-R:Ruth (Willobee) Williams, Edith
(Flesher) Willobee, David Willobee,
Hope (Willobee) Winke, Ross Willobee

My mother (Ruth) and aunt (Hope) were born of missionary parents in India in 1912 and 1915. In 1921 their father (Ross) and my grandfather, died there of black water fever. A few days later their 2-year old brother (David) dropped dead while playing -- all during a famine. Their mother (Edith) stayed on. India was British back then, but poverty was deep and wide throughout the land, and my grandmother lived nearly as poor as those around her, being supported by donations from the U.S. that amounted to 25 cents to a dollar at a time. I have her accounting books and I grew up with stories, and later came across over 1,000 pages of diaries from her that are very much in keeping with life that Kamala Markandaya writes about.

In 1982 I accompanied my mother and aunt back to their birthplaces, which were still in the midst of extreme poverty and the ignorant stupidity of which Kamala describes through the eyes of the white doctor Kenney. I've eaten with families on dung floors, and help stir pots of curry over open fires. I've met and photographed families living on streets with only what they can carry to their name. I've been to temple in the middle of the night and breathed the pungent smoke of dung cakes used for fuel, and watched as a dead leper was carried from her mud-dung hut and given an impromptu funeral in a field before being carried off to be buried in the sands of a river so animals could easily dispose of her body at night.

Perhaps it was all of that which spoke to me in Ms. Markandaya's writing. But I will tell you this. Reading this novel, if you are a Westerner of any ilk, is more important than eating. Let your children go without food for a few meals, if that will give you time to live, love, and walk with Rukmani. This book should be required reading (period - no qualifications). In its reading you will be a better person, and your children, sans meals, more healthy. If you are a priest that hands on penance, Nectar in a Sieve should be reading for any sin involving wealth, greed, abundance, or a lack of human dignity or marital infidelity. I dare to say that before Christ came to Earth to care and love the poor, he read this book. (It is a possible thing, you know.) On the outside Nectar in a Sieve is about the suffering and trials of living near the bottom of the cast system in rural India. But what it's really about is how love and hope can possess the human heart in the most desperate of lives.

Protestant Pastor and Catholic Priest walked into...

The DVD, Study Guide, and Book can be ordered HERE along with more information.

In 2006, an amazing ecumenical thing happened just north of Detroit.

The story begins with a large Evangelical Church in Troy, MI called Kensington Community Church. It is modeled successfully after Bill Hybels' Willow Creek Church near Chicago. Kensington has been growing by leaps and bounds under the leadership of a number of humble and astute men and women and its founding pastor Steve Andrews. Before Pam and I converted to Catholicism, we occasionally attended Kensington (even though it was an hour away) principally for the good music, mini-dramas, practical teachings, and presentation excellence.

A couple of years ago some members and leaders at Kensington became disturbed by the bad rap that a number of the ex-Catholics attending Kensington were giving Catholicism. While the leadership was not going to become Catholic by any means, they definitely considered Catholicism a significant part of Christianity and thought there was a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding taking place.

Kensington's Spiritual Formation Director (Dan Kopp) started a mid-week small group in his home to talk about the common ground shared by Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants -- and he refused to allow any Catholic bashing. Dan also created a “Pastors & Priests” seminar that he teaches at Kensington, which looks at what Catholics and Protestants believe and why – including the Pope, the Virgin Mary, confession, and purgatory. This seminar has been going on for a few years now and has seen hundreds attend.

In the Spring of 2006, at nearby St. Anastasia Catholic Church (pastored by Fr. John Riccardo) a "dialogue" was held before an SRO crowd where spokespersons for Catholicism and Protestantism presented talks on the similarities and differences between the two faith traditions. Shortly after that Fr. Riccardo spoke from the Kensington stage along with Kensington staff on "The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction."

Next came a DVD produced by Kensington's production department where Pastor Steve Andrews interviewed Father John Riccardo before the Blessed Sacrament at St. Anastasia. Pastor Andrews asked about, and Fr. Riccardo cleared up, many of the misunderstandings that Evangelicals and Protestants have toward Catholicism. Fr. John also suggested some important things that Catholics can learn from Protestants.

Large portions of the interview were played before the Kensington Congregation on two Sunday mornings, and over the next few weeks over 2,000 copies of the DVD were sold through the Kensington Church's bookstore. It was on that second Sunday that I began negotiations with Kensington to release the DVD, and we, at Nineveh's Crossing (see link), will release the DVD internationally sometime in January 2007 under an exclusive distribution agreement with Kensington. For my conservative Catholic readers who may wonder if this an exercise in marginalizing Catholicism for the sake of ecumenical pats on the back, Fr. Riccardo's explanations of Catholicism (on this DVD) have been reviewed and approved as being faithful to the magisterial teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. (see Common Ground)

Then, last night (Dec 15, 2006), at St. Anastasia, the two churches gathered for an evening of prayer. The two pastors lit several candles placed on a small table before the altar before the service began, but Steve Andrews was having a very difficult time lighting his candle. Finally he gave up and commented over his open microphone, "I guess I wasn't suppose to be Catholic." (We laughed with him.) Fr. John helped Steve get the candle lit, but in the process knocked it to the floor, which Steve retrieved, and the process started all over. It was both funny and poignant illustration of these two ministers of the Gospel, neither perfect but both trying their best to honor God and lead their congregations to ask God that we might be one.

About 500 attended. There was music from both churches, both pastors gave short talks on prayer, Scripture was read (Luke 11:5-13), members of both congregations led us in a series of prayers for a variety of common concerns, and a basket filled with written petitions from the congregation was brought forward and placed before the altar. Then, the two men knelt before the altar and the Blessed Sacrament beyond, we all knelt with them for an extended time of silent prayer asking God to hear us, heal us, and unite us, so that the world would know that Jesus was sent by the Father. Both pastors made it very clear that as Jesus prayed in John 17, the lack of unity of Christians in the world, made Christians oftentimes the laughing stock of the world and hindered our ability to proclaim the Gospel effectively.

Just before we recited the Lord's Prayer together, a layman who organizes the small groups that are now meeting from both churches presented both pastors with purple stoles, the kind that priest's use when they hear confessions. Our pastors put the stoles on proudly, and you see a picture with this posting.

It was a time of healing and exhilaration. There are still differences that divide us. But a great deal of the misunderstanding and miscommunication between these two large congregations is slowly dissolving away; and hopefully the community around us will know we are Christians by our love.

'I'm Not Promiscuous'

Scarlett Johansson claims "I'm not promiscuous" -- according to a CNN.com post (8:46 a.m. EDT, October 10, 2006).

The report claims Ms. Johansson said,

There does seem to be a mistaken belief out there that I am sexually available somehow -- which is not to say that I'm not open-minded about sex...but I wouldn't say I'm a serial monogamist, either.... I work really hard when I'm in a relationship to make it work in a monogamous way.

This would be funny if it wasn't such a classic example of fallacious logic that falls under the category of "distinction without a difference" or "fallacy of fake precision." I could be wrong here -- but I don't think you can marginalize monogamy? (Ooops, sorry. This is America.)

The capstone sound byte, however, was saved for last. The "not promiscuous" star says:

I get tested for HIV twice a year. ... One has to be socially aware... It's part of being a decent human, to be tested for STDs. It's just disgusting behavior when people don't. It's so irresponsible.

Aside from the obvious contradiction, notice the great leap of logic here. It might be socially responsible to contract HIV and spread it around, but it's irresponsible not to get tested.

This is an example of why our educational system needs to teach logic along with basic reading, writing and arithmetic to every kid in school. I mean, what good does it do if you can read, write, and calculate a statistic if your social intercourse is so fallacious?

Suddenly, the inside of a whale's belly smells refreshing.

The Gravity of Loving the Law

For years I could never understand why King David loved God's law. It was a conundrum, a paradox, possibly a contradiction. How could anyone love that which restricted freedom? And laws certainly did that. But David insists:

From the 119th Psalm:

"Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day (96-98), I hate the double-minded, But I love Your law (112-114); I hate and abhor lying, But I love Your Law (162-164); Great peace have those who love Your law, And nothing causes them to stumble (164-166).

My middle name is David so I take note of this power hungry, courageous, arrogant, sex-starved-adulterous man that God loved -- not that I'm any of those, mind you -- but I take note just in case.

What don't I get? Our courts and jails are full of people, many of them like me, I suspect, who are battling the law, or have lost their temporal battle with it. What is there to love about the law, unless you're an attorney chasing ambulances during the day and later stealthing off to the bank's night deposit.

But then, I later reasoned, I loved science. Why, I've got a B.A. in Physics -- although the grades weren't that good. (Yes, that's a B.A. not a B.S.. I'm told four semesters of German, which I never learned, was the difference.)

What I loved about physics and science was that things were predictable. If you stepped out of a 3rd story window, you fell -- perhaps to your death. But it was predicable. You could count on it. You could plan your life around things like gravity. When you got up in the morning, you didn't have to worry about what the gravitational constant would be during the day. As your alarm radio clicks on you're not going to hear:

Okay, folks, well tomorrow it's going to be sunny with a spot of rain in the morning. For our sailors out there, the wind will be coming from the Southeast at 10-20 knots with a moderate chop on the lake. And, oh, by the way, don't forget to take your gravity boots, and charge up those gravity tires. During rush hour, the gravity index will be down to 0.7...promises to be a messy drive home. Try your best to stay in your lane. Be safe out there.

Sure, if you're not careful, you can fall on the playground (they really should outlaw jungle gyms), but GRAVITY IS GREAT. Sounds like a good bumper sticker. Or how about, "GRAVITY KEEPS YOUR FEET ON THE GROUND."

Maybe that's what David was talking about. Maybe he loved gravity.

Want a copy of the Gravity poster? Here's a link to it's creator's, Gerry Mooney's website. Gerry Mooney's Gravity Poster

Returning to Apostolic Traditions

[Note from Stan: The following essay was written before Alex Jones came into the Catholic Church with dozens of members from his former independent charismatic church. He later earned two masters degree and was ordained as a deacon in the Catholic Church. The "Rev." in this title refers to his Protestant status at the time. 

Two DVDs are available by Deacon Jones.  Alex Jones: Journey of Faith (includes "No Price Too High,"  "Dinner with Alex Jones, "and bonus documentary footage), which tell the story of his conversion to Catholicism,  and Wisdom From Above, the 13 part Bible Study on The Epistle of James that played in many Catholic television networks for years. Pictures and additional links for these two products can be found in the right-hand column, if you scroll down. 

RETURNING TO APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS
by Rev. Alex Jones

Pastor of the Maranatha Christian Church
Detroit, Michigan

Copyright, 2000, Alex Jones.

How great and marvelous are the works of our God; how deep and unsearchable are His purposes and plans. Paul said it well:


Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out.(Romans 11:33)The greatest discovery in my life occurred on a hot, summery August night in 1958 when the Holy Spirit opened the doors of God's life and knowledge to my heart. From this religious experience in 1958 until now an unrelenting hunger has gripped my heart to know more and learn more about this wonderful God and His glorious church. Who is He? What is He like? What does He want? What pleases Him or displeases Him? Where do I fit into His grand plan? What has He done for others? All of these questions flooded my heart on that August evening and has never ceased to make their presence felt.

For the past forty years I have been on a pilgrimage to know as accurately as possible the purposes and plans of this marvelous God. Aside from my college studies and resulting degree and post graduate work in Education, I have read books, attended various church services, dialogued with Christians from differing backgrounds, argued with different sects, briefly attended a bible college, and experimented with several variations of the Protestant background I grew to love. I have courted both Arminian and Calvinistic theology, embraced and then discarded Premillennial eschatology, practiced various forms of religious worship, preached holiness and sanctification, and generally enjoyed the spiritual experiences of my Pentecostal heritage. Yet underneath all of these searchings, practices, and activities was the gnawing desire to "dig deeper," ask questions, and find the will and wisdom of God.

I found that wisdom quite by accident. It was during a lesson preparation for a Wednesday evening bible study on the second chapter of 1 Timothy that I stumble across this treasure buried in a field. Pursuing information to reenact a first century worship service, I read the letters of the Apostolic Fathers, and it was there, in the writings of the early Christian writers, I unearthed a clearer truth of Christ and His Church.

Finally, after years of searching I found the truth of Christ and His Church: His Church was liturgical, it was hierarchical, and it was catholic. I learned that as the Church grew it kept a written record of lines of descent from the Apostles themselves. Protestant claims of small bible study groups scattered through out the ancient world were pure fantasy. They simply didn't exist. The Christian church was and has always been united, apostolic, and catholic. The rise of heresies forced the Church to cling tenaciously to what they had received from the Apostles. All of the churches from Gaul to India had a core belief and method of worship that all agreed could be traced directly to the Apostles.

The second century Church had an organized liturgy that included scripture readings, psalms, litanies, responses, and an orderly, systematic eucharistic service. The center of Christian worship was not the operations of the gifts of the Spirit, which were in great abundance, nor was it the histrionics of great preachers. The center of Christian worship was and has always been the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Eucharist. To the early church the Eucharist was not a spiritual symbol of Christ, it was Christ Himself being re-presented to the Father at every gathering.

Not only was the Church's hierarchical structure and Eucharistic-centered worship different than I expected, so was its teachings. Men were not saved by accepting Christ as their personal Savior, but by immersion in the regenerational waters of baptism. Men were not saved by faith alone, but by the obedience of faith -- a faith demonstrated in good works and holy living. Christians did not seek "blessings," but, to the contrary, willingly sacrificed their lives for their Lord. It was there, in the face of the Apostolic Fathers, that I saw the true essence of Christian spirituality. It was not today's Americanized faith of prosperity or materialistic blessing, nor was it the pentecostal faith of endless exhilaration and emotional excitement. It was a deep, devotional faith of the heart that called forth self-sacrifice, penance, suffering, and righteous living.

With this enlarged understanding of the development of Christian belief came a clearer understanding of the Bible and our most treasured tradition, sola scriptura. This theology teaches–that all we need to know about the revelation of Christ and His Church is contained within the pages of the Bible. Hence, the Bible is the authority for all questions on faith and morals. We have shortened this teaching into, "if its not in the Bible I don't believe it." On the surface this sounds admirable and correct -- "if we cannot read it in the Bible, then discard it, it isn't true." But the problem with this approach is that each of the 28,000 churches and denominations all claim support from the one Bible! Each and everyone one of them claim the "truthful and correct" interpretation of the Scriptures. From Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses every last one of them interpret the Bible differently. We've grown so accustomed to these variety of interpretations that we call the Bible "unclear" in many passages that so that we can allow for differing opinions and interpretations.

Take, for example. Jesus' statement to Nicodemus that he must be "born of the water and of the spirit" (St. John 3:5). Three interpretations have been offered by Christians:

1. Amniotic birth fluid (the first birth) and the Holy Spirit's indwelling (the second birth),
2. The word of God and the Holy Spirit's baptism,
3. The waters of baptism and the Holy Spirit's indwellingJesus statement certainly had one meaning! Although it isn't stated in John's gospel account, I'm sure Jesus explained what He meant to Nicodemus. But how does that help us? Which of the interpretations listed above is true? All three cannot be true! Yet Christians build their faith on one or the other interpretations listed above.

It doesn't seem to matter how scholarly or erudite bible students are; even scholars who wear all of the trappings of academia, differ significantly on many important doctrinal matters! Much study and research do not seem to be able to bring agreement or consensus on what the Bible says.

Another problem with "the bible only" tradition is the belief that, along with diligent study, the illumination of the Holy Spirit (St. John 14:25; 16:13) will unlock the truths of the Bible for all who listen to Him. Certainly study of the Scriptures and the illumination of the Holy Spirit are essential to personal spiritual growth and unlocking the spiritual content of the Bible, but try telling 28,000 differing, bickering churches that their 28,000 differing views on the Bible are indication of their either being scripturally inaccurate or not Spirit-lead. Surely the Holy Spirit does not have–28,000 interpretations of God's word.

Unfortunately, this noble but unsubstantiated tradition has limited us to an extremely narrow perspective of the Christian Church. It not only limits the Christian's world-view of the development of the church, its doctrines, its saints, and its history, but it does not tell the full story of the Christian Church and its practices.

For example, precisely how did the early disciples conduct worship services? How did Christian worship evolve? What did Jesus teach His disciples on the road to Emmaus? (St. Luke 24:45) What did He teach the apostles about the kingdom during His forty days before His ascension? (Acts 1:3) How did the apostles baptize new converts? In what part of the world did each Apostle plant the gospel? What happened to Peter after Acts 12:17 and Paul after Acts 28:31? What happened to Mary, the Lord's mother? The Bible does not say. How did the Church evolve after the death of the last Apostle? Since the Holy Spirit was given to the Church to guide it into the truth, how was He evident in the centuries after Acts? What directions did He lead the Church in the application of Christian revelation? What great men and women did He raise up to shepherd the Church? How did the councils of the Church deal with the practical applications of Christian revelation to the needs of the day?

The Church had a vibrant, rich spiritual life that was not totally captured by the New Testament. There were martyrs, great saints, great evangelism, and great examples of self-denial and sacrifice in the early church that we do not read about in the Bible. The culturally-diverse church at Antioch went on to become the driving force in Christianity. Great saints such as Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Anthony, Basil, and the two Gregorys are unknown by most Protestant readers. The great thinkers of the Church: Origin, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, to name a few, are totally ignored by the mass of Protestant Christians. Yet it was these men that withstood heresies and heretics, hammered out Christian thought, and formulated the very New Testament doctrines and theology we believe as Protestants today. One must remember the New Testament contains many letters (epistles) that were limited in their scope to indigenous problems in local churches. Unfortunately, we only get a glimpse of church life through the pages of the New Testament.

Think about this. Limiting ourselves to what's contained in the Bible is similar to us limiting ourselves to "mastering" the Constitution of the United States but ignoring the Fathers that created it, the history of the Thirteen Colonies that occasioned it, and the history of the country it brought into existence. We would indeed be knowledgeable about the basic rules of American government, but would totally ignorant of:
1. The Bill of Rights
2. The Fathers of this country,–
3. The great Supreme Court decisions that interpreted it,
4. The amendments to the Constitution,
5. The slavery issue leading up to the Civil War, etc.Do not misunderstand me. The New Testament is the inspired word of God. It does contain God's will of us. We must live by its principles and commands. It does accurately and faithfully relate the life of Jesus, His teachings, and the teachings of the Apostles. But it must be receive with the total revelation of the Church. The Bible is not the "pillar and foundation of truth." The Church is! (1 Timothy 3:15) What the Bible gives is an "accurate" but not a "complete" picture of God's working through Christ in the Church. Mark ends his gospel with,
Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it (Mark 16:20).But he does not tell us where they went or what they did! Acts reveals the beginning of the Church with tremendous power, but leaves us wondering the outcome of Paul's trial in the twenty-eighth chapter. Nothing is said of the other eight Apostles. Did they work miracles? Did they die for their faith? If so, how and where? Consequently, viewing Christianity through the eyes of the New Testament is like trying to view New York city through a first floor window at the World Trade Center.

We must also consider that the Bible did not produce the Church, the Church produced the Bible. The Church is not built upon the Bible, it is built upon the Apostles and Prophets. Christ did not leave a written book to guide His Church, He left living men empowered by the Holy Spirit! The New Testament, as we have received it, was not finally canonized until 393 A.D. Until then, what gave the church its cohesion between the Apostles and the canonization of the New Testament? What determined orthodoxy of faith in the face of heresies and heretics? Except for a few minor variations, why did the Church worship God the same throughout the world? How could writer after writer call the Church "catholic" (universal) without the unifying element of the New Testament? What kept the Church afloat until the New Testament could be canonized? In fact, what was the "rule" scholars used to admit certain books, and exclude others from the New Testament canon?

The answers to these questions is found in the Traditions of the Apostles handed down to the Early Church Fathers. This sounds strange to Protestant ears. We have been taught the Word has preeminence over everything! Yet we have ignored the very Church that has gathered, preserved, and produced the Word. Does the Tradition of the Apostles and Church Fathers have precedence over the Bible? By no means! The Bible with the Traditions of the Apostles and Church Fathers give us the total picture of God's work in and through the Church.

The Jews well understand the place of tradition in their faith. The Torah was given by God to Israel at Sinai, but there was also an "oral tradition" called, the Talmud, on how the Torah should be applied. For example, the Torah stipulated the times and types of sacrifices the priest should offer, but did not always tell how the animal was to be slaughtered, dismembered, or presented on the altar. Judges were to administer justice, but the Torah did not tell how court was to be held. Engagements and marriages were to be held, but the Torah did not detail how or where the marriages were to be performed. The details and applications were handed down through oral, priestly traditions.
Of course oral traditions did not have the authority of divinely inspired literature, and many times Jewish traditions conflicted with revelation knowledge. These were the traditions Jesus condemned (Matthew 12:2, 10; 16:12; Mark 7:1-23). Yet He followed certain traditions:

1. He accepted the title of Rabbi
2. He gathered about Him disciples
3. He wore a beard
4. He recognized the tradition of feet-washing for guests
5. He rarely ventured outside of Israel to have contact with Gentiles
6. He went to the synagogue on the Sabbath
7. He recognized the "seat of Moses" as the legitimately ordained teaching office of the Jewish religion (Mat.23:1).

Apostolic Tradition, however, differs significantly from Jewish traditions in that Apostolic Tradition contains ALL that the Apostles handed on to their successors, both written and oral. It is the total revelation of Jesus Christ entrusted to the Church, not accumulative practices and interpretations that many wrongly assert today. This sacred tradition (Gk. Paradosis = "that which is handed down") IS divine revelation transmitted from one generation to another as a sacred body of knowledge. It is the "faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). In 2 Thessalonians Paul admonished the Thessalonians:
Stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradosis) passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.(2 Thessalonians 2:15)He wrote to the Corinthians:
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, (paradosis) just as I passed them on to you . (1 Corinthians 11:2)To some who refused his authority, Paul appealed to the universally practiced but unwritten traditions of the church:
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice (custom)-- nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:16)These statements made by Paul show that practices and traditions recognized by the Apostles had begun to develop within his lifetime. In fact, he quotes teachings attributed to Jesus that cannot be found in the gospels:...remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should– receive their living from the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:14)Hence, the Christian faith began to grow well beyond the pages of the New Testament. Customs, practices, traditions, all practiced and recognized by the Apostles, guided the first century church through its formative years. Without knowledge and familiarity with ALL of the Church' s teachings, our grasp of the Christian message may be good, but certainly it is not complete.
So, let us return to the beginnings of the Church and rediscover the precious treasure of Apostolic Tradition. Let us take another look at the long history of the Church of Jesus Christ and enjoy the fullness of the Christian faith.

Merry Christmas and the Spirit of Individualism in America

"Merry Christmas"

and the spirit of individualism in America

Stan Williams, Ph.D.

During this Christmas Season, more than others in recent past, I’ve noticed the onslaught of public sector officials to rewrite history and the fundamental reason we take off work this time of year. To some of those whom we elect or appoint to positions of authority, the separation of church and state has become life’s obsession. No longer is it Merry Christmas, but Happy Holidays, or Season’s Greetings. We’ve even seen this revisionist shift in Christmas Cards (ah, excuse me, Holiday Cards) from otherwise well-meaning Christians, including the White House.

But this just makes sense to me. At least it is consistent with America’s history of protesting and maniacal obsession with individualism. In America, the land of the free, we should be free to think and conclude whatever we want (ah, excuse me, that should be “whatever ME want”). The reality and truth of history, or the reason for the season, is no match for individualism.

This is an interesting twist on the concept of democracy, or the rule of the majority, especially when our attention, with the fight for democracy in Iraq, is so often a front-page news item. Of course, we have never lived in a pure democracy, but rather a democratic republic. Yet the democratic principles are still on the books. That is, the will of the majority should take precedence and not the will of the minority and surely not the will of the individual. Although that too is changing.

We give lip service to democratic principles because we believe that there is some truth in what the majority believe, hold dear, and embrace as truth. Underneath the concept of democracy and our fundamental pursuit of happiness is the Biblical concept that God has written His Divine conscience on all of our hearts in the form of a natural law that keeps our minds rooted in reality the way gravity keeps our feet rooted on Earth.

Democratic principles and our institutional sense of right and wrong brings me back to the importance of the meaning of words. Words have etymologies, or a history of where they came from and why they are used. Words express a culture's remembrance of truth through a default sort of democratic principle. Words are not voted on in a polling booth, but are imbued in the rules of language by the use of the majority. As time and events shape a culture’s identity, so words change to reinforce what is learned and what should be remembered. Certain words change in subtle ways and take on new, but not always more truthful, meanings. Unfortunately, our culture’s obsession to remember history in certain ways drives the move to change, not just the meaning of the words, but to change the actual words as well. Thus, we are in the midst of changing from “Merry Christmas” to “Season’s Greetings.” Even “Happy Holidays” is being discouraged because the term Holidays is a permutation of the original phrase “Holy Days.” And while the term Holy means to be “separated from,” and individuals in America just love to be “separate” (it has a distinct, adventurous connotation don’t you know)... few Americans want to be identified with the institutional church that repressively declared what days were to be holy and celebrated “apart” from our everyday, secular lives.

But this is to be expected in America. Specifically, it is to be expected because “Merry Christmas” is itself a permutation, and shift from history, and from reality. “Merry Christmas” is the perfect idiom for America, the land of the free, the brave, and the individual. “Merry Christmas” sounds safe today, but it’s entomology points to King Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy, and the British Parliament's subsequent Penal Laws that were also successfully applied in parts of the American Colonies.

If you’re unfamiliar with that part of British and American history here's a synopsis. The Act of Supremacy (1534) and the Penal Laws (beginning in 1559 and continuing for centuries) were successful attempts to erase a part of history and suppress the roots of Western religious culture, replacing them with a protest against institutionalism. These legislated acts established the King of England as supreme head of the Christian Church and outlawed the evil practice of Catholicism with exile or death. Never mind that a few years earlier (1521) Henry VIII was declared "Fidei Defensor" (Defender of the Faith) by the Pope for defending the Catholic Sacraments against Martin Luther's rebuff, and never mind that to this day the initials F.D. appear on all British coins to celebrate that fact. The Act of Supremacy was the ultimate protest and helped to reinforce the concept of "Protestantism" as a powerful word ladened with historical meaning. As much as the Act of Supremacy established the British Monarchy as an institution, it was ironically the ultimate act of individualism — the supreme act of a King to press his individual will on an entire culture and force it to forget its roots and change its religious practice under penalty of death. Two hundred years later, this cultural embrace of individualism would create quite a problem for the British Monarchy when America wanted to be separate, and take individualism to the next level. But at the time being a protestor against institutional authority was very popular.

And so it is that the phrase "Merry Christmas" carries on this protesting tradition to shroud our roots in fog. In an etymological protesting sort of way "Merry Christmas" might remind us how a woman and a man put their individualism aside and obeyed the greatest institution of the Universe. "Merry Christmas" should remind us that the individual is very important to God, but only when that individual obeys God. But "Merry Christmas" doesn't do that very well, unless you strip away its protesting artifacts and go back to the original words. There you will find three words that were the focus of this most holy of days: Mary, Christ, and Mass. For it is in the Mass that we remember Mary's obedient "yes" to life, and Christ's obedient "yes" to death. It is at Christmas, in the Christ Mass, that we celebrate the incarnation and the selfless cooperation between God and a woman that made salvation from individualism and self-importance possible.

Words have meaning... and, unfortunately, "Merry Christmas" doesn't say it all.

Catholic Apologetics in a Baptist Pulpit

Dear Reader:

Here’s an email Pam sent to our Kids and me.  None of us can believe she did this.  I’m still shaking my head.

—Stan

Mon, 25 Jul 2005

I Went to Church with Tom

I’d like to tell you of my church experience with Tom (Pam's adult brother with cerebral palsy). He and I did a lot together this past weekend (including bowling—very fun) while my parents were in Alfred, NY attending my dad’s 65th high school class reunion!!!! Before I returned him home Sunday night, we went to the Sunday evening service at his Baptist church in Taylor, Michigan.

They are currently without a pastor since their senior pastor retired, and they had a guest speaker—a missionary from Bethlehem—who had slides of his little fledgling church. One slide had statistics about the population of Bethlehem, and 70% of the city is Catholic. 

He then proceeded to tell a series of stories about Catholics and their ignorance of the Bible, their breaking of the 3rd Commandment (worshiping graven images, because they have statues in their churches), their addition of 7 books into the Bible, and their practice of only praying once a week when they went to Mass, and baptizing infants, when they should be waiting until after they are saved. 

When he equated Catholics with Muslims and said he was there to teach them the truth, I could not sit in my seat any longer. I got up, walked up the side aisle and stood next to him in the pulpit. When he turned to me (in shock, I think) I said to the people, "With all due respect, I could not let him say wrong things about the Catholic Church anymore in front of this dear congregation of people" I then asked them if I could clarify some things. Of course, at that point one of the pastors came up and said he would talk to me on the side. But I said I had to say something in front of everyone, because I was raised thinking all these things were true about the Catholic Church, too, but then I learned the truth about what Catholics believe, and it’s not what is being perpetuated among Protestant churches, and I can’t let that continue. We don’t worship idols, and we didn’t insert books into the Cannon of Scriptures, rather Protestants took them out, .... and I would have said more, but the pastor asked me to step out with him, so I did.

We talked in the lobby for another half hour until the service was done. Here is a sample of our conversation.

Pam: I can’t sit by and hear someone spread lies about the Catholic Church and listen to your congregation give assent with their “Amens!” and laughter to hear what they think is the silliness of Catholic people and their beliefs. That’s how I was misinformed about the Catholic Church, too. Now that I know the truth, I can’t sit by and let that happen anymore.

Pastor: Well, if you have questions about our beliefs, I’d be glad to talk to you any time.

Pam: No, I don’t have any questions about what you believe. I only want to make the point that this spreading of misinformation about the Catholic Church needs to stop. This is not helping the unity of Christians as Christ prayed for.

Look, do you have pictures of your family in your home? Well, back in the earliest times of the church, they didn’t have photography, so they used sculpture/statues, ...paintings, and stained glass, to show the Holy Family (Mary & Joseph) and the disciples and other important people in Christ’s life. That doesn’t mean they worship these things. Have you ever been to a Mass?

Pastor: Yes, I have. And they do elevate Mary to a place above all other people, and don’t they believe she was sinless? They even call it the Immaculate Conception.

Pam: Yes, they do.

Pastor: Well, that’s where we disagree. No one is sinless since Adam and Eve.

Pam: But Mary was chosen to be the New Eve....

(Another pastor came out and introduced himself and we did not pursue this line of conversation further, but I wish I had been able to say, “The Bible even says that she is sinless! In Luke 1, what does the Angel Gabriel say to Mary? “Hail, Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you.” If you are full of grace, there is no room for any sin! “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” This beautiful Angel with direct access to God Almighty hails Mary as sinless and claims that she is blessed above all other women. That’s why the Church calls her Queen of all Saints! Yes, she is elevated. The Angel straight from God said she was and the Church is merely perpetuating that truth.)

(Also, consider this: The Arc of the Covenant in the OT was so holy, no man could touch it without being struck dead. It had to be transported on poles and carried by priests. What did it carry? Symbols of Christ. --Manna (Jesus is the Bread of Life), --The Ten Commandment Tablets (Jesus is the Word of God come to fulfill the Law), and the --Budded Rod of Aaron (Jesus is the Resurrection). So, if the contents of the Arc were pointing to Christ, what was the Arc itself pointing to? Mary. Marry carried the Son of God in her womb for 9 glorious months. If God demanded that the OT Arc be untouched and reverenced, how much more the real living Arc of the NT. If God wants His Son carried by a sinless, holy temple, He can do that. He’s God! He found a way through the Immaculate Conception.)

Pam: (My next concern had been the story the missionary told about him needing to correct the priest about the Cannon of Scripture—what books are accepted as part of the Bible.) Everyone in Protestantism has the story turned around. Luther’s German Bible has all 73 books. Even the first King James Bible had the 7 “contested” books in it, which you refer to as the Apocrypha! The Protestants took them out after the Reformation (in the early 1800s).

Pastor: That’s where we disagree.

Pam: But, we don’t have to, if you read history. History doesn’t lie.

Pastor: Well, the Cannon was decided during the Councils of Nicaea and Trent.

Pam: That’s right, and all 73 books were in the Bible then. And who do you think called those Councils? The Catholic Church. There were Protestants there at Trent, yes, because they were invited but they had no vote. They were simply observers. But, who was given authority to decide what books are in The Word of God and what are not? Not individuals (and not individual denominations)! The authority was given to the Church that Christ established through the Apostles!!! (I should have added, “The Nicene Creed calls the Church ‘the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.’” Do you accept that Creed?) So, after consulting with these councils, and asking the Holy Spirit to guide their decision, the Catholic Church proclaimed that the contested books should remain.

[Here are some facts I did not have at my fingertips at that time: The same list of books confirmed at the Synods of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419) and Council of Florence (1442), were also confirmed at the Council of Trent (1546, Session IV). In other words, that list was right from the beginning—the first 3 hundred years after the Church was established, and it was confirmed at the Council of Trent.]

Pastor: Well, we’re just not going to agree on these things, but if you have any other questions, please feel free to come talk to me.

Pam: But, I don’t have questions. I just want to clear up what Protestants misunderstand about the Catholic Church, so we don’t create greater divisions between us.

At this point, a woman from the congregation entered the lobby where we were and said:

Woman: Pastor, you know me. You know that I’m Catholic, and I go to Mass in the morning and your church at night. I bring people to your church with me and to my church, too. I love them both. And, you know I don’t pray just once a week, and you know I’m saved. That was not right what the missionary said about Catholics not praying much, and not being baptized right, and that Muslims and Catholics are to be grouped together as if they weren’t even Christians. You have to speak to him about that. That’s not right.

Pastor: OK, I can agree with that. I’ll speak to him after the service.

Pam: But, in the meantime, everyone is saying, “Amen,” to everything he throws out there about Catholics, and your whole congregation is assenting, by their laughter, to the lies that are being told them. (And, I don’t blame the missionary. He is just passing on what he thinks is the truth about Catholics.)

But, we have to stop this. It’s not bringing unity among Christians. It’s making Catholics appear as not even in the same ballpark as Christians.

Pastor: OK, I’ll speak to him. We’re getting together after the service.

Woman: Well, you have to agree that the missionary asking one Catholic woman how often she prayed does not give an accurate picture of how all Catholics are. Come on, Pastor, that was a cheap shot!

Pam: You could get that response from any Protestant, as well. People do not always practice what their church teaches. For instance, the Church has scripture readings and prayers that they encourage Catholic Christians all over the world to pray every day, morning noon and night. No matter what their language, we have the same scriptures to read and prayers of meditation on any given day. Do all Catholics do that? No, but then do all Protestants pray every day either?

Pastor: Well, that’s a good point. Even for Baptists.

Woman: And, I bring Catholics to your services all the time. I’d hate for them to hear what we “preach” about them. Pastor, you’ve got to set them straight. Pastor, you know me. You know I’m not like what he’s describing Catholics to be.

Well, I have to go now. (And she left the church.)

Pam: (I began to appeal to the other pastor.) Since you are a Baptist Church, let’s talk about baptism. The missionary said baptism should be in a certain order with salvation, namely after one is saved. If the Bible is your only authority, what are you going to do with the scripture that says, “Baptism now saves you?”

Pastor 2: Yea, I know. It does say that. I’ve read that, too.

Pastor: But, we interpret scripture differently than you do.

Pam: And where do you get the authority to do that?

Pastor: From the Holy Spirit!

Pam: Then why do other people/pastors who claim the same thing (that the Holy Spirit is their authority to interpret the Bible) come up with different answers from you? If it’s the same Holy Spirit, it has to be the same answer! Instead, trying to do this on our own has resulted in over 33,000 different denominations!

God knew we would need a way to interpret His Word, so he gave us the Church (with the Holy Spirit) to do that.  The authority comes from Christ, to His Church, founded on the Apostles and passed on through the priesthood with the laying on of hands. You can go to any bookstore and buy a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church for $8 and know the truth about what the Catholic Church teaches! You don’t have to misunderstand anymore or spread things that are not true. You can read it for yourself and also see the scriptures they use to back up their claims! It’s all written down for you to examine.

Pastor: Well, we’re never going to agree, but if you have any questions for us...

Pam: Please understand, I don’t have any questions about what you believe. I only want you to be correct in what you teach your congregation about what Catholics believe! We do have to talk again, though.

Pastor: Thank you for your respectful manner in speaking with us. We would be glad to continue the discussion further any time.

Pam: Thank you, too, for your kindness to me, for listening to my concerns, and for agreeing to speak to the missionary about the two areas you do agree he needs to be corrected in.

 (I’ll just rephrase them now: 1] not generalizing about the whole Catholic Church on the basis of one Catholic person’s practice, and 2] not grouping Catholics with Muslims but rather Catholics with Christians. Protestants and Catholics can learn much from each other, and we need to be telling the truth about each other.)

Well, I just thought it would be helpful for you to know that this happened, because as I was able to tell the congregation before I was ushered out, “I once believed all these same things about the Catholic Church that this dear missionary has said. But now that I know what the Church really believes and teaches, I cannot sit by and allow these misrepresentations of the truth of the Church be perpetuated any more.”

Thanks for listening.

Love,  Mom

The Bible Interprets Itself

The Bible Interprets Itself

November 29, 2004

Stan Williams, Ph.D.

This is therapy.

Last night in a noisy jazz club I got into an argument with a few Lutherans who claim they're not Protestant but the original "catholic" church. Since Luther was excommunicated, so their thinking goes, and didn't voluntarily leave the Catholic Church he (and they) are not "protesting" anything and so they shouldn't be considered Protestants.

This is fascinating logic. If Lutherans are the original Catholic Church I wonder what happened to the church that kicked Luther out?

I was also informed that these particular folk are part of an independent Lutheran Church and left the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (recently) and neither will they have anything to do with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American because they, too, teach wrong doctrine. Again, fascinating logic. I wonder how excommunications and defections enhance one's authority? And how do we know, just within Lutheranism, which the "true" Catholic-Lutheran Church? By what method, just within Lutheranism, is truth measured infallibly?

I was also told that Catholics have an erroneous Bible insofar as it has 72 books in it and the Lutheran Bible (?) has 66. This is fascinating reconstruction of Lutheran history, insofar as all of Luther's Bible translations had all 72 books in them.

By what authority do these Lutherans use only 66 books?  Surely not Luther.

But the most fascinating thing I heard all evening was that the Bible interprets itself. I've head this before. But it leaves me slightly confused.  Where in the Bible am I informed as to which of the 66 or 72 are supposed to be in the Bible? Or do we not need an infallible authority (e.g. a church council) to establish an infallible authority (e.g. the Bible)? And why does the Bible not include one or more of the dozen of letters and writings from the early Apostles such as the Gospel According to Peter, The Epistle of Barnabas, or The Didicae? Who determined what was to be in the Bible and what was to be excluded? If the Bible can interpret itself, then surely it can resolve it's own evolution. And if the Bible can interpret itself, then why are their 20,000 + different Christian churches all claiming that the other church is misinterpreting the Bible?

Before the Protestant Reformation, the answer was very simple. In fact, the answer now is the same as it was for the first 1500 years. There is an authority that listens and obeys the Holy Spirit as prescribed by Christ.

Or, where does the Bible say that the Bible is the only authority on morals and faith apart from men, led infallibly by the Holy Spirit, to interpret it?

As a Roman Catholic there is a very easy answer to the authority issue, because it is so explicitly stated in the Bible. And contrary to what many non-Catholics believe, the teachings of the Church are infallible not simply because they come from a man who is the head of an institution, but because they come from the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said they would. Here is the doctrine and process in a few Bible verses.

----

Jesus tells Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt 16:19)

But such authority is not arbitrary but inspired and infallibly brought to the Church through the Holy Spirit. Again Jesus is talking: "The Holy Spirit...will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26)  "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, will guide you to ALL truth. (John 16:12-13)

And then, Jesus says to the Apostles, "RECEIVE the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23)

Thus, infallibility ONLY comes through the Holy spirit, and yes through men in leadership who have been given that blessing.

----

Now non-Catholic Christians disagree with this, because in their Christian culture they've been taught that no one is infallible. And within their Christian upbringing they are absolutely right. There is no infallible promises to any of their non-Catholic church leaders. That is their experience, their life, their teaching, and even Catholics agree with that teaching. Why? Because somewhere in history non-Catholic leaders have either been excommunicated (as Luther was) or voluntarily defected from the church and by natural consequence excommunicated themselves. Therefore they have been separated from the above promise of infallibility.

It is only reasonable then, that non-Catholics are offended when someone tells them that what they believe about infallibility is true, but only for their own church. And what is true for their church does not, by logic or any other extension of authority, extend to another church. To do so is like someone with O+ blood claiming that everyone else must have O+ blood. Or, it's like the leader of one organization demanding that another organization follow the first organization's by-laws.

The verses quoted above explicitly state and define infallibility; and you will never read of a Lutheran theologian claiming them for himself or his church. Non-Catholic theologians will continue to say that no one is  infallible (that is what they know from personal experience), and that is the claim echoed loudly, and clearly, and continually by all non-Catholics.

This, too, is fascinating. Because the non-Catholic proclamation about how no one or no church is infallible, IS in the form of an infallible statement. It is a universal, dogmatic, timeless declaration of fact...to those that say it.

And so, logically, if no one is infallible, how then does anyone know absolute truth? Or, how can one even be so infallible to prescribe that no one is infallible?

The Catholic Church has a simple answer. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church (which contains all believers, including priests, religious, bishops and the Bishop of Rome) and through prayer, fasting, dialogue, debate, and study...the will of God about a particular issue is arrived at and proclaimed by the Church as true. The process in each case takes years. Never has a Pope arbitrarily, outside that normally very long process of discerning God's will, made any dogmatic proclamation. And never has a Pope made a proclamation of truth without the consensus of the other bishops of the church. Thus, while the Pope is said to have the office of the keys, he has never used them without being in union with the doctrine of the full church. Furthermore, no doctrine has ever been proclaimed unless the church can confirm that the doctrine was believed and held true during the lives of the Apostles and in keeping with their direct teachings. Therefore, although some doctrines have been proclaimed since the last apostle died, the Church can demonstrate that the first church under the Apostles' leadership held such beliefs. Like the law of gravity, the proclamation of the law later on does not create it, but only explains and articulates what has always been true.