Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[Eufrosnia]

So something that I have noticed with most of the threads on this part of the forum is that they tend to have a theological issue that is debated to infinity with Catholics vs. Protestants getting nowhere. In general, the Catholics walk off more Catholic and the Protestant walks off more Protestant. Both sides have simply assented to an (albeit different) authority already.

Now this is in noway meant to devalue theological analysis. It has its place when it is done within the assent to a valid authority. But otherwise, it can be tedious and less fruitful. After all, Theology is the use of reason to analyze and formulate claims using foundational revealed truths of the faith. The revealed truths themselves are taught by the authority. So if we have two authorities, then we have two different theologies. One cannot therefore assess the other camp theologically because both sides differ already at the core.

The question we all want to bypass or sometimes even ignore in all of this is that of Authority.

Now why is this question important?

It is important because every religion on this earth makes a set of supernatural claims. Since we cannot directly verify supernatural claims as humans, we have to trust the person or persons claiming these truths. But to do so, we must first know

1. that the person has authority to know supernatural truths, and
2. what truths the person (or persons) taught

Now both of the above must be knowable within the realm of day-to-day reasoning (which we will refer to as natural reasoning for convenience) .

So the Catholic claim for (1) is that Jesus proved his authority to know and control the supernatural through his death and resurrection and that it is a historically verifiable fact. This is pretty much what all Protestants would claim as well (other than those who hold a modernist view that it is a spiritual resurrection).

The division between Catholics and Protestants then take place on point (2) on what Jesus taught. The Catholics claim that we know what Jesus taught by giving assent to the Church. The Protestant claims that one directly gives assent to the Bible as the Word of God and that each believer interprets the Bible. The Church is then judged using the Bible.

Now it must be noted that either of the claims must be accessible through natural reasoning and otherwise we must conclude that we just don’t know what Christ taught.

Now I would first like to handle the arguments for (2) from the Protestant side

a) It says in Scripture that it is inspired by God
b) Therefore it is the Word of God

Problem with the above is that I can write a book and include a sentence that it is the Word of God. That does not make it true.

a) When reading Scripture, one sees that it is indeed the Word of God

But “X is the Word of God” is a supernatural claim. Since we cannot directly perceive the supernatural, we cannot make such claims.

Now one can present the objection to the Protestant claim as follows

1a) “Scripture is inspired by God” is a Supernatural claim
2a) Supernatural claims are not directly verifiable
3a) Therefore the claim must be made by a person or an entity that one can decide through reason to possess knowledge and be authoritative on the Supernatural.

So the (3a) requires that we have another authority that has either proven itself as Christ did or can be seen to have some authority to teach what Christ taught.

Now in our human understanding, teaching authority is usually passed down by the teacher to a selected set of students. This is so intuitive to us that this is how we maintain all our professional bodies and their fields of knowledge as well as academic structures. When we want medical advise, we turn to a certified Doctor. Same with Engineers, Lawyers etc. So anything that we cannot verify directly by ourselves is accepted through a certified authority.

In the same way, Catholics see Christ’s Apostles as worthy of being considered as having the authority of Christ. Now treating Scriptures as nothing more than historical accounts of Christ, we know that among many Disciples (students) of Christ, 12 were specifically chosen and had a more closer relationship with Christ. Therefore it seems reasonable that these 12 were given the knowledge and authority to teach what Christ taught about supernatural truths. Thus we have the birth of a field of knowledge regarding the supernatural and its caretakers, experts and teachers.

Now these Apostles themselves had students of their own that they selected. They would be the Apostolic Successors. In the same way, this field of knowledge has been maintained, passed down and taught by Apostolic Successors to this day. Therefore, anyone who wants to know what Christ taught must assent to the authority of the Church consisting of Apostolic Successors.

The Church itself has defined its scope and extent of authority through the centuries, just like any other professional body in charge of a field. So we accept that and all of its teachings by faith.

Therefore the Catholic accepts all supernatural claims such as “Scripture is the Word of God” or “God is a Holy Trinity” through faith in what the Church teaches.

Also, unlike Protestants, the Catholic recognizes that the Church has claimed it to be the final authority in interpreting Divine revelation, whether it be Scripture or Tradition. So in all things, the faithful assents to the Church and strives to interpret Divine Revelation within the guidance of the Church.

So now that I have made the Catholic position clear and presented objections to the Protestant position. Let the discussion begin!

 

[Goya]

…

Now it must be noted that either of the claims must be accessible through natural reasoning and otherwise we must conclude that we just don’t know what Christ taught.

…

Before I chime in on the substance of your OP, I must confess that I got caught on the above (which you also bolded). Why must the Divine Word of God be accessible by natural reasoning?

Seems to me, that our conceptoin of the Trinity–the Trinitarian/Triune nature of God–is not ‘accessible by natrual reasoning’, yet it is accepted by most protestants, as well as (presumably) all Catholics.

Most of the Book of Revelation is also not accessible by natural reasoning. And much (perhaps even most) of Daniel.

I could go on, but that would more likely obscure the point, than develop it…

My point is only that this standard seems to be a bit arbitrary. Perhaps you can shed some light on what you’re meaning with this, or where it’s coming from–maybe I’m missing something…

(note: this doesn’t at all undermine your underlying assertion vis a vis authority, as all of the above were determined–or determined to be ‘Inspired’–by and through Sacred Tradition).

 

[Goya]

btw, as a sidenote, Mark Shea wrote a book that dealt pretty well with the issue of authority, aptly titled ‘By What Authority’. He was an evangelica protestant, who converted to Catholicism, after digging into the authority claimed by protestants. A pretty good read, imo. For those who may be interested…

 

[brb3]

It is important because every religion on this earth makes a set of supernatural claims. Since we cannot directly verify supernatural claims as humans, we have to trust the person or persons claiming these truths. But to do so, we must first know

1. that the person has authority to know supernatural truths, and
2. what truths the person (or persons) taught

Yes, we can verify some supernatural claims of man. Those of Jesus, we can. In fact, Christ challenged us to do so, via sacred scripture, especially John’s Gospel account. He challenged his 11 followers… not just Thomas. And, all verified he was pierced in side and hands, and who he claimed he was.

We too can verify Christ’s claims of risen Lord … but, we must do so on his terms. If we approach on bended knee, fully contrite and fully confessed, desirous of becoming disciple, and receiving all the essential salvation sacraments he taught ---- He will send us the Paraclete, who testifies to Christ and verifies Christ is Risen, Lord of Universe and his Universal Church.

 

[sennincatholic]

interesting posts!

 

[Eufrosnia]

Before I chime in on the substance of your OP, I must confess that I got caught on the above (which you also bolded). Why must the Divine Word of God be accessible by natural reasoning?

Seems to me, that our conceptoin of the Trinity–the Trinitarian/Triune nature of God–is not ‘accessible by natrual reasoning’, yet it is accepted by most protestants, as well as (presumably) all Catholics.

Most of the Book of Revelation is also not accessible by natural reasoning. And much (perhaps even most) of Daniel.

I could go on, but that would more likely obscure the point, than develop it…

My point is only that this standard seems to be a bit arbitrary. Perhaps you can shed some light on what you’re meaning with this, or where it’s coming from–maybe I’m missing something…

(note: this doesn’t at all undermine your underlying assertion vis a vis authority, as all of the above were determined–or determined to be ‘Inspired’–by and through Sacred Tradition).

Oh I see. Perhaps I should have phrased it more clearly.

My point is that the two points I stated must be verifiable through reason. Otherwise our faith is arbitrary to begin with.

I would argue that this standard is not arbitrary because this is usually how we assent to any field of knowledge. If we want to learn Mathematics, we must first verify using reason that the person is indeed a Mathematician. Similarly, one must verify that

1. A person is authoritative to speak of supernatural truths (Transcendent truths to be more accurate)
2. The teaching we attribute to that person is indeed from that person

So I am not saying that Divine Revelation itself must be arrived at through reason. We cannot arrive at Divine Revelation through Reason anyway, especially with truths such as “The Holy Trinity”. If we could, we wouldn’t need Divine Revelation. But my point is that we must verify using reason as to how we can access Divine Revelation in the first place. Otherwise our faith would be arbitrary and could be mislead.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes, we can verify some supernatural claims of man. Those of Jesus, we can. In fact, Christ challenged us to do so, via sacred scripture, especially John’s Gospel account. He challenged his 11 followers… not just Thomas. And, all verified he was pierced in side and hands, and who he claimed he was.

We too can verify Christ’s claims of risen Lord … but, we must do so on his terms. If we approach on bended knee, fully contrite and fully confessed, desirous of becoming disciple, and receiving all the essential salvation sacraments he taught ---- He will send us the Paraclete, who testifies to Christ and verifies Christ is Risen, Lord of Universe and his Universal Church.

I think you are confusing supernatural events with supernatural truths (and that may well be due to my lack of clarity in my OP). The fact that Christ died and rose from the dead is a supernatural event. It does not require us to be capable of observing the supernatural to see the event taking place.

So perhaps it is better to use the term “Transcendent truths” rather than “Supernatural truths”. These are truths you cannot observe. So if someone says that the Bible is the Word of God, you cannot know this from your senses alone. It is something you believe by faith. But before you give your assent by faith, you must be sure that the person claiming the truth is authoritative. After all, we just don’t believe anything that is logically possible by faith. So unless there is an authority that can tell us that “Scripture is the inspired Word of God”, “God is a Holy Trinity”, or “Jesus will send the Holy Spirit to us” we would be unreasonable to assent to such claims as true.

 

[Lancer]

Your statement (quoted below) seems to be at odds with a fundamental tenet of Catholic teaching on interpreting scripture…or maybe to be more precise is not complete…doesn’t “go far enough”…see if you agree…per Catechism sections below.

Pax Christi

Now it must be noted that either of the claims must be accessible through natural reasoning and otherwise we must conclude that we just don’t know what Christ taught.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

**The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
**
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. **But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.**80
​

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Your statement (quoted below) seems to be at odds with a fundamental tenet of Catholic teaching on interpreting scripture…or maybe to be more precise is not complete…doesn’t “go far enough”…see if you agree…per Catechism sections below.

Pax Christi

I think you are perhaps confusing the particular stage of assent I am discussing with a later stage. At the stage that I am discussing, we are first checking to see who the authority is in the first place. So we have not yet assented to the Catechism or to any Church or book.

In this stage, the idea that “Sacred Scripture is Inspired Word of God” is in itself under question. It is only after the person has found the true authority that they can assent to that truth as well as truths taught in the CCC, Councils, Dogma etc. given that it is what the authority teaches.

So this discussion does not go in to Theology. It is primarily centered on the stage of “how does one discover the authority to assent to discover Transcendent truths”. Theology and Church teaching only enter the picture afterward. So at this stage, all of the Transcendent claims and teachings are still under suspect.

Did that clarify?

 

[sennincatholic]

I think you are perhaps confusing the particular stage of assent I am discussing with a later stage. At the stage that I am discussing, we are first checking to see who the authority is in the first place. So we have not yet assented to the Catechism or to any Church or book.

In this stage, the idea that “Sacred Scripture is Inspired Word of God” is in itself under question. It is only after the person has found the true authority that they can assent to that truth as well as truths taught in the CCC, Councils, Dogma etc. given that it is what the authority teaches.

So this discussion does not go in to Theology. It is primarily centered on the stage of “how does one discover the authority to assent to discover Transcendent truths”. Theology and Church teaching only enter the picture afterward. So at this stage, all of the Transcendent claims and teachings are still under suspect.

Did that clarify?

:yup:

 

[SyCarl]

Now it must be noted that either of the claims must be accessible through natural reasoning and otherwise we must conclude that we just don’t know what Christ taught

Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1(20)

But “X is the Word of God” is a supernatural claim. Since we cannot directly perceive the supernatural, we cannot make such claims.

Now one can present the objection to the Protestant claim as follows

1a) “Scripture is inspired by God” is a Supernatural claim
2a) Supernatural claims are not directly verifiable
3a) Therefore the claim must be made by a person or an entity that one can decide through reason to possess knowledge and be authoritative on the Supernatural.

So the (3a) requires that we have another authority that has either proven itself as Christ did or can be seen to have some authority to teach what Christ taught.

By this we know that we abide in Him and and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 1 John 4(13)

In the same way, Catholics see Christ’s Apostles as worthy of being considered as having the authority of Christ. Now treating Scriptures as nothing more than historical accounts of Christ, we know that among many Disciples (students) of Christ, 12 were specifically chosen and had a more closer relationship with Christ. Therefore it seems reasonable that these 12 were given the knowledge and authority to teach what Christ taught about supernatural truths. Thus we have the birth of a field of knowledge regarding the supernatural and its caretakers, experts and teachers.

By what authority are you deciding that the Scripture is an accurate historical account? Logically, is it not true, that any book can contain both truth and error?

Now these Apostles themselves had students of their own that they selected. They would be the Apostolic Successors. In the same way, this field of knowledge has been maintained, passed down and taught by Apostolic Successors to this day. Therefore, anyone who wants to know what Christ taught must assent to the authority of the Church consisting of Apostolic Successors.

Ignatius of Antioch didn’t seem to know he would have a successor.

Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it

Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.ix.html

Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to heal every disease and sickness and told them to raise the dead. They were able to receive and proclaim ne Divine revelation. Has this authority be given to the successors? How are we assured that these successors have passed it on without error? Is God not able to inspire others to teach?

The Catholic Church recognizes the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of East.

The Church itself has defined its scope and extent of authority through the centuries, just like any other professional body in charge of a field. So we accept that and all of its teachings by faith.

This what it boils down to. The Catholic Church has authority because it says it does. In order to accept this you have used your personal interpretation to assess the evidence you rely on.
[/quote]

 

[Tomster]

Well, I don’t know if what I am about to relate has any bearing on this thread. But, since the title of this thread is “Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)” I’ll go ahead and relate it.

Almost seventy years ago, around 1955 or so, there occurred what was called the Wisconsin heresy trials. These heresy trials cut across several different Lutheran denominations and caused a major problem within American Lutheranism. Three Lutheran pastors were tried by their Northwest Synod on charges of denying the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ, and the value of intercessory prayer. Two pastors were found guilty, one was acquitted but resigned his pastorate. The synod then suspended one of the guilty pastors from ministry, but the other guilty pastor was defended by his congregation, which stood by him, with the result that the congregation withdrew form the Northwest Synod.

All the while, liberal minded Lutherans felt that an injury had been done not only to the three pastors but to the reputation of American Lutheranism. They tried to have the cases re-examined by the supposedly higher authority of the United Lutheran Church to which the Northwest Synod belonged, but without success. The reason, believe it or not, was a fear of schism. Any attempted exercise of jurisdiction over the Northwest Synod would have been against the constitution of the U.L.C. which was ostensibly a Church, and yet so loosely federated that “it had no authority in constituent synods or their congregations or seminaries, and no official way to enter an affair like this one.”

 

[Tomster]

Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1(20)

By this we know that we abide in Him and and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 1 John 4(13)

By what authority are you deciding that the Scripture is an accurate historical account? Logically, is it not true, that any book can contain both truth and error?

Ignatius of Antioch didn’t seem to know he would have a successor.

Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.ix.html

Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to heal every disease and sickness and told them to raise the dead. They were able to receive and proclaim ne Divine revelation. Has this authority be given to the successors? How are we assured that these successors have passed it on without error? Is God not able to inspire others to teach?

The Catholic Church recognizes the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of East.

This what it boils down to. The Catholic Church has authority because it says it does. In order to accept this you have used your personal interpretation to assess the evidence you rely on.

Sy,

If you took the time to read what St. Paul had to say about the Church, that the Church is Christ’s Mystical Body, and if you brushed up on your Incarnational theology you would know that the Church is the actual continuation of Christ on earth through time, not some Jesus and me experience, you would have a better understanding of just who and what the Church is.

 

[Tomster]

Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1(20)

By this we know that we abide in Him and and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 1 John 4(13)

By what authority are you deciding that the Scripture is an accurate historical account? Logically, is it not true, that any book can contain both truth and error?

Ignatius of Antioch didn’t seem to know he would have a successor.

Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.ix.html

Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to heal every disease and sickness and told them to raise the dead. They were able to receive and proclaim ne Divine revelation. Has this authority be given to the successors? How are we assured that these successors have passed it on without error? Is God not able to inspire others to teach?

The Catholic Church recognizes the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of East.

This what it boils down to. The Catholic Church has authority because it says it does. In order to accept this you have used your personal interpretation to assess the evidence you rely on.

Sy,

In regards to the last paragraph, Catholics do not use their own personal interpretation to assess the evidence. The Catholic Church has legitimate authority because Christ said so and Catholics believe what Jesus said. It’s based on our faith in Him and what He said.

 

[Koineman]

I’m posting this here from another thread since Eufrosnia requested it.

So instead of making huge thread posts, lets condense our discussion because it is certainly possible. There are two issues here.

1) With respect to historical truths

I am not sure why you suddenly decided to say that “You have no historical authority”. Because I may indeed be authoritative in the field. Not that it matters on a forum anyway.

Because you wrote, “If I were a historian …”

But my point is that historical truths are observable truths, not directly by us, but those who lived at that time. So I don’t necessarily even need to be a historian. I can just reason using what I know as accepted history.

“Accepted history”? Accepted by whom?

I can even reinvent all historical methods from scratch because all of these fields deal with empirically verifiable phenomenon (not supernatural).

Historical events are not empirically verifiable. You can’t observe them or discern them with your senses, which is what empiricism involves.

A simple way to put it would be that I can accept that witnesses were saying the truth regarding the death and resurrection since they died for that truth.

That doesn’t prove much. We know that there are plenty of fanatics out there who will die for crazy ideas, whether political, religious, or otherwise. Witness Josef Goebbels and his wife: They killed all their children and then committed suicide—because of the downfall of what they were politically fanatical about. And let’s not overlook a more contemporary phenomenon: radical Islamic suicide bombers who die because they believe in the false idea that they’re going to go to paradise for it.

You seem to also think that this goes to an infinite regress. That too is incorrect. All I would bother, if I were looking for a Historian, would be his certification and acceptance of his work in the circle of expert Historians. As I said before, this is just how it works in any field of knowledge, especially in Academia.

Yes, a person’s credentials and expertise are strong indicators that they are reliable, but professional background does not make one immune to personal bias. Even experts and scholars can ignore facts that go against their preferred interpretation of things. No one is neutral.

If you want to challenge this thinking and reasoning, we are not just talking about Christianity anymore but entire Academic systems.

It’s not that I’m challenging academic systems but rather I’m pointing out that in order for you to conclude that the RCC is the one true church, you have to rely on someone or some people whose reliability you cannot be 100% sure of, in the effort to accept a church that you can believe teaches with 100% accuracy. Historians can be biased, as I pointed out. Not only that, but there could be other historians that disagree with their conclusions—unless you’ve gone the full extent of determining that all historians without exception agree that all the historical facts you mentioned really happened.

In addition, your argument is further proof that you must rely on your own private interpretation of what you have learned. I say that because the very act of forming a syllogism necessarily involves interpretation—a making sense of—a series of points. After all, that is what your conclusion is: an interpretation of the premises taken together as a whole. Furthermore, you have to be absolutely sure that your argument does not exclude any premises that would render your conclusion false. Unfortunately, that is the very thing you have failed to do. Your argument seems to depend on the idea that historical succession of men is the only criterion needed to determine whether a church is truly apostolic, yet the New Testament speaks of an additional criterion—what those men teach:

” 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8-9, NASB)

Note how Paul does not exclude even himself from this anathema if he were to preach another gospel. Even angels—messengers from God—are to be accursed if they present another gospel. Now Paul would not have written this to his audience, the Galatian Christians, unless he expected them to interpret teaching that comes to them and to make a decision based on that interpretation. It should also be borne in mind that Paul was writing to the Galatian believers as a whole, not just the church leaders.

The acceptance of anyone who claims to speak for God, according to Paul, is based on the content of their gospel message.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[Koineman]

Part 2:

One more point about your argument: Your second premise was, “Jesus was a rabbi --Historical fact.” Was He an actual rabbi in the sense of leading a synagogue and being an established religious leader of the Jews, or was it just that people called Him by that title, sometimes out of hypocrisy and sometimes out of sincere respect?

Also, the idea that the “Church is correct only so far as it is consistent with Scripture” is a logically meaningless statement. It makes a hidden assumption that “Church must be consistent with my honest interpretation of Scripture”. So in a way, you are really pitting your authority regarding interpretation against the Church.

I’m not pitting my authority against it but rather exercising discernment as to whether the RCC teaches another gospel. The apostle Paul encouraged his Galatian readers to do the same. Here is that passage again:

“8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Gal. 1:8-9, NASB)

Anyway, all of this is because you don’t want to follow the Church but follow yourself, is it not? You may want to say “I want to follow God and his Word” but in the end, that Word has to be interpreted and it does not change the fact that you designated yourself the Authority capable of doing so.

As I’ve been showing you, you are in the same boat. You must rely on private interpretation to make sense of what you read in the various Catholic writings, and that amounts to making yourself an interpretive authority. You even said that you can go to various church writings to verify that what the RCC teaches is true. That necessarily involves interpretation on your part. I don’t see what you don’t get about that. You basically have three choices:

1. Rely on your private interpretation when reading anything the RCC or church fathers wrote; or
2. Rely on others’ interpretations of them; or
3. Ask the authors of the documents themselves (Augustine, et al.), or the Pope himself, but of course that is impossible.

You cannot get around the interpretation issue.

2) I don’t have direct access to the Pope

I am not sure what part of this is difficult to understand. If you had a parent, which is the Church, then why is it hard to listen to it?

I made this clear already more than once: You can’t ask the church magisterium directly, like you could ask parents directly. Your analogy quickly falls apart.

But you have somehow made this in to “how do I arrive at 100% certainty that this is what the Church means”.

Somehow? I’ve arrived at it very rationally, and plain for all on this board to see. You claim that Protestants have uncertainty because they don’t have any living authority to verify whether their beliefs are true. You, however, have the same problem unless you can call up the RCC magisterium whenever you want to get clarification. And that’s a lot of long-distance phone calls.

To be frank, if you are really interested in knowing 100%, you can present your writings regarding a matter to the local bishop and they will verify it for you.

The issue here isn’t whether I need verification. The relevant issue is whether you have the kind of certainty you claim to have, which you feel makes the RCC superior to Protestantism.

More importantly. Do you realize that “Catholic Church is false” is not grounds to think “Protestantism is true”?

I never made that argument. My argument, as is clear to anyone who reads our exchange, has been that the Catholics are not on the better epistemic ground you think they’re on.

 

[Koineman]

This what it boils down to. The Catholic Church has authority because it says it does. In order to accept this you have used your personal interpretation to assess the evidence you rely on.

Bingo!

 

[Eufrosnia]

Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1(20)

Well we don’t know yet. That is what we are yet to determine. As far as we know, we don’t know if Corinthians is from God at all.

By this we know that we abide in Him and and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 1 John 4(13)

Well we don’t know about the writings from John being Word of God either. So that itself is still under question at this point.

By what authority are you deciding that the Scripture is an accurate historical account? Logically, is it not true, that any book can contain both truth and error?

The accuracy of Scripture can be based on historical methodology. Historical methodology is based on natural reasoning with respect to that empirical field. So one can either learn it from a historian or come to know it completely by themselves.

The difference between historical truths and transcendent truths is that the historical truths are within the empirical scope while transcendent truths are not. So the fact that Jesus had Apostles is something we can verify. But we cannot verify by observation whether a book contains the Word of God.

This is an important distinction in the types of truth.

Ignatius of Antioch didn’t seem to know he would have a successor.

Well he may have indeed not had a successor. That is fine. Not every Apostle has to institute successors. Maybe he spent his energy on other things instead of training or accepting a new student as a successor.

Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to heal every disease and sickness and told them to raise the dead. They were able to receive and proclaim ne Divine revelation. Has this authority be given to the successors? How are we assured that these successors have passed it on without error? Is God not able to inspire others to teach?

Well first, we don’t know if Jesus gave authority to cure diseases. That is not within the natural realm of reasoning. All we know for sure is that Jesus had students and that we are obviously reasonable in assuming that the students have authority to teach. Anything else is speculation on our part that does not fit any other experience we can relate to.

The Catholic Church recognizes the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of East.

Yes it does. But if your question is about how you arrive specifically at the Catholic Church and figure out that the Orthodox are in error, that too can be settled historically. But for now, let us concentrate on the topic of Succession. If a Protestant is willing to admit that succession is indeed what they should assent to as authority, then we can move to the next step.

This what it boils down to. The Catholic Church has authority because it says it does. In order to accept this you have used your personal interpretation to assess the evidence you rely on.

Huh? I think it always helps when given a deductive argument, you would oppose the argument itself with a counter argument showing which premises are unacceptable. Otherwise, regardless of my motives or the Church’s the conclusion stands.

So as biased as my motives maybe, if you have no objection to the reasoning I presented, then the Catholic Church will have to be accepted as the authority and the Protestant position would have to be considered as unreasonable.

 

[Tomster]

Bingo!

Wrong!

In theocratic societies, such as the Catholic Church, God founded a particular society by supernatural revelation. He specified its structure and determined its leaders. Here God is most directly and immediately the source of authority, not only in governing but also in teaching the faithful who belong to the society.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Bingo!

Your post is a little too long.

So let me answer it here.

You are confusing empirically verifiable with “me being personally able to perform empirical verification”. That is a very weird view of empirical verification. When I say that historical knowledge is empirical, what I mean is that people living at the time has no issue in witnessing the events through their senses.

Second issue with Jesus being a rabbi, it only matters that he considered himself a teacher. We can use Scripture as mere historical documents to see that he did indeed consider himself a teacher. That is all that matters.

Anyway, in all of this, you seem to forget that there is no point in quoting what Paul said or what John said regarding supernatural matters if we don’t know they have any authority. The only way to say they have authority is to postulate a teacher passing down authority to students. In this case, Jesus himself to the Apostles.

So even if you reduce Catholicism to the same problem as Protestantism, the conclusion is not that Protestantism is justifiable but both are unreasonable and should be purged. Do you realize that?

**Also, the point here is more than whether the RCC is superior. The point here is that to assent to the RCC is REASONABLE. To assent without the Church to the Bible or some other entity is UNREASONABLE. **