We go now to Len in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, listening on Sirius
satellite radio. Len, you are on with Trent Horn, what's your question? Good
evening, guys. So I'm a lifelong Catholic, but I've
studied Protestant theology probably at least as much as I've studied Catholicism. I
have the same objection into both churches, and that is the extent to which both
churches tend to divide over issues as to which there is no definitive answer
on this side of Heaven. And the transubstantiation/consubstantiation,
whether Mary was born with Original Sin, whether we're saved by works, whether
works have any salvific value, and it just seems like there's divisions over
points that just simply cannot be definitively answered. And it causes me,
you know, great heartache because theology tends to divide people, whereas
mission work, for example, tends to unite people. I just wonder what your thoughts
are about that. Okay Len, I guess my first question would
be: you're saying that these issues such as the nature of the Eucharist or Marian
dogmas or the nature of salvation can't be resolved. Why do you think they can't
be resolved? Is the only reason you think they can't be resolved is because people
disagree over them? Well, the problem's the proof. I guess the question is, where do you look to find
the answers to such questions as, for example, whether Mary was born with
Original Sin, or whether the Holy Eucharist is actually Christ's body or
whether it's a symbol. Protestants and Catholics look at the same Bible,
essentially, and come to different conclusions, and yet they divide over
issues like that. Okay, sure. Well, I would say that where
you would look would be the sources of divine revelation, which as Catholics we
believe would be Sacred Scripture--so God's Word in its written form in
Sacred Scripture, God's Word that has been passed on to the Church and sacred
tradition--and the Church that Christ founded, what the Church teaches on these
subjects, because God didn't simply leave us with
a Bible, He left us with a Church endowed with His authority that could be
passed on to successors. So I would say that it can be resolved, these issues can
be and have been resolved, the Church does definitively teach on these issues;
there are other issues, I agree with you, that the Church has not definitively
taught about, that our--we are separated by the veil, if you will, and so
the Church has not definitively taught, for example, what the exact nature of
Purgatory is, for example. Or even issues related to Mary's virginity, the Church
has not definitively taught who the Brethren of the Lord are. Whether you
know it's definitive that they are cousins, or half siblings, whatever it
may be; so there are issues where the Church has not definitively defined a
subject, but then there's issues where it has and just because there's
disagreement, I don't think that takes away from--you know, there's disagreement,
just some people are right and others are wrong. Because Len, I mean, look at it
this way: you say, "Well, Catholics and Protestants look at the same thing, they
disagree, so let's not focus on that." Would you agree that Christians and
atheists can look at the same evidence in the natural world, and they disagree
about whether God exists? Sure. Okay, but would that mean there's no definitive
answer to the question of whether God exists? No, I would say not, no. But why is that?
Atheists look at the same evidence and they don't come to that conclusion. Well,
we come from a different worldview. Atheists, for example, don't
accept the Bible as the Word. If you're going to ask the question, I think part of the
question has to be, where do you find the answer? And if you're going to ask the
question, for example, about how we were created, the Atheist worldview is not
Biblical, and obviously the Christian's is. So where you stand is where you sit. I think
I see what you're saying here about presuppositions a little bit. Do you
think, though, that a person could use reason to show God exists? That
you don't have to assume the Bible is true, that you could just make an
argument based on nature that shows God exists? Do you think that's possible? Well
sure, I know about the ontological arguments and all the arguments that are
positive, but, you know, even those have weaknesses as well. I mean, at some point we
can reason through, but at some point we can't understand and we have to
apprehend what we don't really comprehend. Sure, and Len, I think that
this example would show that on important issues, like the existence of
God or the deity of Christ, Christians and non-Christians, whether they're
atheists or Jews or Muslims, will disagree over evidence they look at, but
you and I would agree that Christians are correct on this even though there's
disagreement, and we would agree there are still definitive answers. And your
your point about "Well, it's about ultimately your own worldview," I agree
with you, so that same logic would carry over to the Catholics and Protestants. We
look at the same evidence, we're gonna be approaching it in different ways, and we
come to our foundations of our worldviews in different ways; but there
are still definitive answers there even if people don't agree. There's one
last point I'd like to address before we move on: you say "Well, theology divides,
but things like mission work unites." But I don't think it's necessarily bad if
something divides. For example, you would--would you agree that Jesus, during His
earthly ministry, what He taught, He divided people. Wouldn't you say?
Oh absolutely, no doubt about that. Yeah, but
that's okay, because truth is ultimately going to divide people
between those who accept the truth and those who reject the truth. So it's okay
to cause division; in fact Jesus Himself said, "I've come
to bring division, to set father against son, brother against brother," because the
truth does divide people. That in itself isn't bad, it's necessary so that we can
help people who are in error come to the truth to pass over that
dividing line, if you will. So that's probably how I would take
a look at all that, and I still think theology would be important, and what the
Church has defined on dogmatic issues related to the nature of the Eucharist,
or Mary, I think that we have very good evidence for that from Scripture, from
tradition, and from the teaching office of the Church. And if you would like more
information about those subjects and their foundations in the deposit of
faith and divine revelation, I'd recommend visiting our website
Catholic.com and looking up those points, and I think you'll get a lot more from there.
So thanks very much for calling in.