This post isn't part of any series or anything. I seem to have inadvertently gotten a few of those going at once. I just really liked this post from Disputations, itself quoting canonist Ed Peters: http://disputations.blogspot.com/2011/09/he-who-distinguishes-well-teaches-well.html
Apparently, we are supposed to accept all the teachings of the church, but only some of them are we to accept through belief; others we are to accept through confidence. We are supposed to believe the Word of God, for instance. But other teachings, it seems, we don't so much believe as accept because we have confidence in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Confidence, that is, that God continues to guide his Church.
Maybe some will think that is a distinction without a difference. Personally I find it an enormously helpful distinction. Maybe it will help you answer honestly the next time someone asks you incredulously, "Do you really believe that?" There are certainly some things that I accept willingly despite finding them kind of hard to, you know, believe.
There is a nice definition of "confidence" at the link, as distinct from "hope" and "trust," plus this final thought:
"It's a bit… non-self-evident, perhaps, that confidence in God should cause a firm embrace and retention of definitive propositions of the magisterium of the Church. But the question isn't whether we're going to firmly embrace and retain definitive propositions; the question is whose propositions are we going to embrace, and why."
If that is true, the implication is that we can and do embrace propositions without even realizing it. Indeed: whose propositions do we embrace and retain? Why do we have such confidence in those who have originated them or passed them on?
Hm, I take that back. Maybe this is part of one of my series after all.
bearing blog 