Hey everyone,

I was just wondering how you explain how to a protestant or non-Catholic how the Holy Ghost guides the church by the hand...how church councils are guided by the Holy Ghost?

I've had a few people who I've spoken with who try to say that church councils believe the Holy Ghost guides them, but it's delusion essentially...that the council decrees are man made.

I've had some struggles trying to explain it to them before they try to attack the church with sola scriptura.

No one?

I'm not sure what you're looking for.

When a protestant asks, how can the church really be guided by the Holy Ghost...they think that when a council meets that when the church is saying that the Holy Ghost guides a council...that's it's just in their heads. That it's "man made" doctrines as some have argued to me.

I don't really know how to explain to them that the church is in fact guided by the Holy Ghost without them coming back sola scriptura and arguing that these councils are "man made" rules/doctrines.

You can't, Protestants gotta Protestant. This isn't something you can argue about.

I never agree with Doom, except during Lent

You can at least help them to understand what's being said by comparing it to the inspiration of Scripture. If they will grant (as most will) that Scripture is without error, then it is possible for human actions to be guided by the Spirit in a way that prevents error. But showing that the Spirit does do this is a complicated task that involves chunks of Church history, scriptural exegesis from all over the place, etc. You might try tracking down a copy of Patrick Madrid's Where is That in the Bible? to see if he gives some useful pointers on this.

But the question isn't 'how can I argue for a such and such a doctrine in a way that is so compelling that no one will just dismiss what I have to say with just a wave of the hand?' and the answer to THAT question is 'you can't.'

The question is ultimately 'how do you overcome someone's irrational prejudice?' and the answer ultimately is 'unless the person you are talking to WANTS to overcome his prejudice, you can't.' If the person is open to the idea that maybe his prejudices are misguided, and he wants to be persuaded, there might be some hope, but that's not something you have any control over.

You can make any argument you want, there's no way you can make sure that the person you are talking to won't just dismiss your argument with a wave of the hand.

If that is what happens, then all you can do is 'wipe the dust off your feet' and find a way to politely exit the conversation.

The best argument, which doesn't mean it will convince them, is to cite the council in Acts 15, then demonstrate the teaching authority of St. Peter and the Apostles from other sources of Scripture (Matthew 16:18, John 20:19-22) which is reflected in Acts 15, then demonstrate that their offices were to be carried on and handed down (Apostolic succession). You can also look at the history of the Church immediately following the Apostles (non-Biblical historical sources). So.... it won't be a short response...

This may be helpful: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/apost ... uccession/

EDIT: What's really man-made is to say it has to be in Scripture. Because no where in Scripture does it say all the tenants of Christianity, doctrines, and definitions are contained in Scripture. You may even have to start here before anything.

I actually don't think that's anywhere near the best argument. I think that's something that's appealing after conversion for the simple reason that "demonstrat[ing] the teaching authority of St. Peter and the Apostles from other sources of Scripture" will require getting into a debate about the best interpretation of Scripture, and you're just not going to get anywhere with that. To me, a far, far, far better argument in defense of Catholicism in general and most Catholic doctrines is wrapped up in the cliche, "To believe the church fathers is to be Catholic." Very few non-Catholics have read the apostolic fathers. Off the top, non-Catholics (especially of the low church, evangelical kind) aren't going to be terribly impressed with post-Nicene fathers . . . they just expect them to be Catholic. But you can genuinely surprise people by quoting second and third century authors. The person you're talking to almost certainly will not have the expertise with that particular document to get into exegetical argument about what the passage "really means" as they will with Scripture, so you won't have to get into a debate about whether or not, say, Irenaeus, was Catholic. You'll be granted that much quicker than you'll be granted that Luke in Acts 15 was Catholic! Just so, they won't have the emotional investment in seeing the early Christian authors in a non-Catholic light because they're own theology insists that such is not Scripture. And finally, even if they try to argue against the earliest church fathers being Catholic . . . well . . . to put it mildly, they'll have quite an uphill battle on their hands.

In short, if you get non-Catholics discussing the earliest church fathers, you'll have them talking on your turf, so to speak. Those Christians are far more likely than not to lack the expertise, emotional attachment, or textual warrant for arguing against a Catholic interpretation of those documents. And that sets you up rather nicely for the argument that if the earliest Christians were Catholic, and many of them knew the apostles personally, well . . . how do they think that happened? Then if they return with, "Yeah, but Scripture says . . ." you've set the table appropriately with a rejoinder along the lines of, "No, your tradition, which is only a few centuries (or much less!) old says Scripture says . . . my tradition, which goes back to the earliest Christians, says that Scripture says . . ."

Just my opinion, of course.

They asked the Holy Spirit for guidance.

This is the declaration of the Immaculate Conception at Vatican I. (from Denzinger)

...Wherefore, in humility and fasting, we unceasingly offered our private prayers as well as the public prayers of the Church to God the Father through his Son, that he would deign to direct and strengthen our mind by the power of the Holy Spirit. In like manner did we implore the help of the entire heavenly host as we ardently invoked the Paraclete. Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.

What an obvious and prudent thing to do! Asking God, through His Son, to strengthen their minds by the power of the Holy Spirt.

They did that, and they believe they were answered. Good enough for me.

-BHM

Councils made up of bishops, successors of the Apostle's. If they don't believe that in the first place, which many Protestants do not, then they're not likely going to accept that those anointed through the line of Apostolic succession through 2000 years are guided by the Holy Spirit in a council, or anywhere else.

People such as you speak of, well, don't accept the Catholic Church as the ONE TRUE HOLY APOSTOLIC Church, so they'll argue about everything to do with it. If you can get them to read a good book on Church history, or the writings of the Fathers, they may come around and convert. Or, they may stubbornly continue to refuse to believe the truth.

Best Wishes,

Matthew 16, 18-19

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

There are Protestant theologians who have said if this text is genuine, then the Catholic Church is the true church.

A reasonable answer to Protestant attacks is to say, "But you admit you COULD be wrong?"

If he says "Yes" he cuts the ground out from under his own feet.

If he says "No," he is claiming infallibility (that's what infallibility means -- can't be wrong.) But by claiming the Church is in error, Protestants have rejected the Kharisma of Infallibility -- they can't turn around and claim it for themselves.