Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[Koineman]

People accept empirical claims from others when the source is reliable enough in proportion to the claim being made. This is normal and how things work among normal people.

And how do you conclude that the witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection are “reliable enough in proportion to the claim being made”?

Ok look, you seem to be in a tangle about this issue. I don’t care or no anything about infallibility at this stage. I am only concerned about who is the authority. Do you understand that?

Yes, but I also understand that our discussion began with your response to my question of another poster to supply an infallible list of infallible Catholic teachings. So I am sticking with that issue. You moved the goal post, my friend, not I.

When I want to get treatment for a disease, I turn to a Doctor because that is what Reason points me to. For you to say that it is a fallible decision so therefore it is unreasonable is absurd.

No, that’s not quite what I said. I said that your acceptance of an infallible authority is itself based on a fallible process. That’s not an absurd statement at all; it’s a statement of fact. The problem is that you are determined to avoid that truth so that you can hold on to your belief that the RCC is the one true church and Protestantism consists of a mass of confused people with no authority.

Who else do I turn to? Myself? Or pick a book and interpret it myself?

In the case of your acceptance of the RCC, based on what you’ve written in other posts, that is precisely what you do.

So don’t try to justify your own unreasonable position by thinking too narrowly.

I’m not thinking narrowly at all. It has been shown you beyond doubt that your acceptance of the RCC is based on your own private interpretation—something which Catholics love to accuse Protestants of doing—but you are stubbornly refusing to accept that utterly obvious reality about yourself. That actually seems narrow to me. I realize that it has chilling implications for your beliefs, but for the sake of your own soul, you should really reconsider.

Any normal person will turn to a Doctor. If you were to just say “I am going to treat myself”, people will rightly say you are being unreasonable and naive.

Yes, that’s true, and Protestants don’t say that we just treat ourselves. As I’ve told you before, we do believe and accept authorities other than the Bible. We just maintain that those authorities must be subject to the Bible. Try to avoid caricatures.

Originally Posted by Koineman
No, it’s not. Jesus went against the established grain of the Judaism of His day in serious ways, as we all know. Who is to say, then, that He did not go against the grain in this area? Unless you can establish that with certainty, then this premise is doubtful and, consequently, makes premise 4 in your argument pointless.

Ok listen to yourself here. We don’t believe things that do not have proof.

Now that is a very interesting statement. Do you realize what you’re saying? Proof is more than mere evidence; it actually compels agreement because it is irrefutable, 100% certain, beyond doubt. Are you saying that you actually have that utmost degree of certainty through natural reason alone? You would do well to consider the biblical definition of faith:

“11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By faith we understand …” (Heb. 11:1–3a).
Note several things about this text. Faith itself is the assurance. Also, it is by faith that we understand; we don’t have faith by understanding. I’m not positing that faith is blind, but I think you are placing all the emphasis on natural reason and completely overlooking the supernatural component that must be involved in saving faith, i.e., the working of the Holy Spirit in a person to convince and bring them to faith.

Continued in part 2…

 

[Koineman]

Part 2:

Logical Possibilities are not actualities. This is how human thinking works. Jesus may have had another twin he hid for a long time that no one knew about and after his death, the twin took over and then disappeared. Is that possible? Yes. But would be reasonable for me to believe that? NO! That would be highly unlikely and therefore absurd.

Yes, but the point I made was not unlikely or absurd, since we know that Christ did indeed go against the grain of the religion of His day. Bringing up an absurd example does not militate against my sound objection. He was not educated like rabbis, nor did he have any ruling position on councils or in synagogues, nor did He submit to their authority in all areas. He criticized them, rebuked them, called them hypocrites. In light of this, it is not absurd at all to say that there is no guarantee that He followed the established rabbinic practices of His day. Sorry, those are flaws in your premises.

Stop making illogical claims without reason.

Umadbro?

I thought that since you were defending Catholic teaching, you believed that Scripture is inspired. I thought that was a common ground between us. If you are going to remove even that common ground, I’m not sure what point there is in discussing this.

You have serious issues and in your system of thought, entire Christianity itself is worthless because even if you heard it from Christ himself, it is still you interpreting it. Do you understand how absurd you sound?

That would indeed be absurd if that was what I actually said. I never said nor argued for such a thing. That was another caricature of your own making. I’m noticing that you like to come up with those.

Recall when you used the analogy of parents and their child. If the child misunderstands something, the parents are right there to correct the child. I certainly agree with that scenario, and I never disagreed with it, so your insinuation above is misapplied.

My main contention in this whole thread is to show that such an analogy does not apply to Catholics, as you have claimed. You cannot ask the pope directly for correction/clarification, and even resorting to bishops does not help you because they are certainly not going to consult with the pope directly every time an issue comes up AND they are not clones of the pope, so there is no guarantee they are going to say exactly what the Pope would say on every given issue. Thus, Catholics are in no position to criticize Protestants for relying on private interpretation since they themselves ultimately must do so as well in order to conclude that the RCC is the one true church.

Protestants, however, are in a much better situation, since we have a living authority that we have direct access to: God-breathed Scripture and the Holy Spirit’s enabling to understand it, an intimate connection with the very Author of Scripture. Since in this discussion you overlook the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian, it’s not surprising that you think what I say destroys Christianity. For you, the starting point is your own natural reasoning ability. It is by natural reason that you try to conclude that the RCC is the one true church, the only proper authority for all Christians, and yet you still don’t see that in doing so you are making your own natural reason the authority to decide whether to accept or reject an idea that is so monumentally important.

None of what I said destroys Christianity. You overlook the supernatural component of faith. The Holy Spirit works in tandem with the teaching of Scripture, so there is much, much more to faith than merely natural reason.

You are just so convinced in your flawed Protestant position (Why only God knows), that you are trying to go to any lengths to defend it.

Because I know how to test a church to see if it is apostolic, and I’ve found the RCC’s claims to be apostolic to be dubious, to say the least. They do not teach the gospel. Their teaching shifts the burden of salvation from Christ to the believer. I value my soul, and so I decided I could not join the RCC, even though I wanted to very much.

 

[Goya]

…

Because I know how to test a church to see if it is apostolic, and I’ve found the RCC’s claims to be apostolic to be dubious, to say the least. They do not teach the gospel. Their teaching shifts the burden of salvation from Christ to the believer. I value my soul, and so I decided I could not join the RCC, even though I wanted to very much.

Sorry sir…but we’ll need a little more that ‘your’ surely learned, intellectual analysis.

Again–from up thread:

*5. Chirst passes his Faith system on to his followers–the Aposltes–orally. He expressly instucts them to do the same. They do. They expessly instruct their followers to do the same. They do. That is and yields, Tradition.

1. The Bible distinguishes between "Apostles’ and ‘disciples’. All Apostles are included as Christ’s disciples; not all disciples are Apostles. The Apostles are the 12–then minus Judas, then plus his successor, Matthias, then later, plus Paul. This distinction signifies a ‘hierarchy’. The replacement of Judas, and the later addition of St. Paul, signifies succession, and growth, respectively. This is the Church that Jesus Christ founded.

…So…

Where, when, and how–by what person, event, or other [such] amounting to Divine Revelation–did the Church that Chirst actually founded–that was passed on, AS HE PASSED IT ON, and AS HE INSTRUCTED HIS APOSTLES to pass it on, and by WHOM He passed it on to…somehow get displaced, or divested, of the authority, confidence and trust Chrsit placed it Her?
*

Christ established a Church. THE Church. Something divine must be invoked, to suggest that Christ’s work there, has been overturned, or that Chirst’s prophecy of the ‘gates of Hades’ not prevailing against it, was unreliable.

Your learned reasoning, holding ‘the RCC’ to be Apostate–isn’t very compelling in terms of AUTHORITY. (Nor even that of the ‘great’ Martin Luther, or Jean Calvin, or the like…).

 

[Eufrosnia]

Post 1 of 2

And how do you conclude that the witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection are “reliable enough in proportion to the claim being made”?

Because they were willing to die for the claim that Jesus died and rose from the dead. There is nothing more, as far as my mind can tell, that you can ask from a witness of an event to convince me of what they saw.

Now you might get a bit confused and wonder why I perhaps don’t believe in Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Mohammed considering so many people died for them. The difference is that if someone dies for a Transcendent claim, I cannot really believe them because it is doubtful if they could even know that claim. So if million people died saying Jim Jones is a prophet, I cannot use that to conclude anything about Jim Jones. As far as I know, people cannot know if others are prophets through their senses.

But if many were to die saying Jim Jones was killed and rose from the dead, that itself is something they can indeed see. I in turn can analyze the chance that they may have made a mistake, or Jim Jones pulling it off by some natural means, and then arrive at the conclusion as to whether Jim Jones did indeed die and rise from the dead. If I arrive at a positive conclusion, then I can say that Jim Jones is a valid authority regarding Transcendent. If it was a negative, then I can discard Jim Jones as a fake.

In case you wonder how the death and resurrection proves someones authority over the Transcendent, it is due to the following. IF someone has died, then our understanding tells us that they cannot affect themselves naturally. So if one were to rise from the dead, they have to affect their state in the Transcendent sense. Since no one we know has come back this way by themselves, it seems to be the case that the Transcendent laws do not allow such a thing to take place. So for Christ to come back from the dead by himself means that he affected his state in the Transcendent realm and also had authority over it to change how it works.

So one can conclude in this way that Christ is a valid authority to believe regarding the Transcendent. One thing to note is that it does not immediately tell us if Jesus is God. That is not something we can answer by reason alone and something we must accept because the Church (which has the authority) teaches that Christ claimed as such.

It is only because the Church says that Christ claimed he was God that we can continue to believe it when it seems unnecessary for an almighty God to become man. Then there are the tons of Muslim scholarship on trying to interpret the Bible to show that Jesus never claims he was actually God but the Apostles just got confused. We can push these sort of claims aside without any fear because we know the Apostles were students of Christ, Apostolic Successors were students of Apostles and therefore it is them that has the authority to teach what Christ claimed and not some individual or individuals who came 600 years later who have no reasonable claim to authority. Same goes for Protestants.

Yes, but I also understand that our discussion began with your response to my question of another poster to supply an infallible list of infallible Catholic teachings. So I am sticking with that issue. You moved the goal post, my friend, not I.

Well, we can continue on that too but the issue you had over there was somewhat bizzare. Why? Because of the following.

Your claim is that even if we grant infallibility to the Church, it is still pointless because it comes down to our on interpretation. (This is what I gathered to the best of my understanding). So you postulate that Catholics and Protestants are both in the same camp because they postulate what Scripture or Church teaching says.

The problem with the above claim is that you don’t seem to understand the first issue with Protestantism i.e. That it is unreasonable to assent to “Scripture as the Word of God” without reason. Regardless of what issue you may have with the efficacy of infallibility, the Protestant position falls because it requires an unreasonable assent to a Transcendent claim.

So you are comparing Apples to Oranges when you compare Catholicism and Protestant. Catholicism claims a reasonable line of thinking and the faithful assent first and foremost to a verifiable claim i.e. Is there any reason to think Apostolic Successors got passed down the authority to teach. So it is like looking in to seeing if a certain individual is validly certified by the experts in that field.

Protestantism on the other hand directly assents to Transcendent truths themselves i.e. Scripture is the Word of God. To be upfront with you, all the Five Solas themselves are Transcendent truths that the faithful must accept. But there is no way to verify if this claims are indeed true and therefore one is unreasonable to assent to such things without any reason.

As for the issue on the efficacy of infallibility itself, you are still confusing things because you don’t seem to understand what it means to have a living authority. If I do not understand something, I can refine my understanding by studying more material from the authority and given the occasion, even asking them directly when possible. In fact, this is what the Catholic Church asks the faithful to do. That is why it encourages the reading of the Bible, the commentaries of passages by the Church fathers, saints and others. Reading of Encyclicals etc.

(Continued …)

 

[Eufrosnia]

Post 2 of 2

No, that’s not quite what I said. I said that your acceptance of an infallible authority is itself based on a fallible process. That’s not an absurd statement at all; it’s a statement of fact. The problem is that you are determined to avoid that truth.

The acceptance of an authority does not need to be infallible just as much as your decision to accept medical treatment from your family Doctor needs to be infallible. It just needs to be reasonable.

Who on earth says that one must be infallible to accept ones Doctor as knowledgeable to give treatment?

I think why you are trying to take this route is because you feel that you can perhaps point out to me how both types of assent are fallible. But what you are mistaking is that I am not claiming that you need to be infallible in the process. I am only claiming that you need to be reasonable. Just blindly assenting to claims like “Scripture is the Word of God” which are Transcendent truths (and therefore beyond direct verification) is unreasonable.

As long as you assent on some reasonable grounds, you can correct or come to know you are wrong. If you just assented arbitrarily, that leaves no room for correction or refinement. You can believe and say whatever you want if you are not grounded in reason when it comes to any knowledge.

In the case of your acceptance of the RCC, based on what you’ve written in other posts, that is precisely what you do.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

I’m not thinking narrowly at all. It has been shown you beyond doubt that your acceptance of the RCC is based on your own private interpretation—something which Catholics love to accuse Protestants of doing…

Catholics do not accuse Protestants of assenting using private interpretation. Catholics accuse Protestants of assenting arbitrarily to a Transcendent truth. That is indeed absurd.

The Catholic assents to an verifiable truth i.e. that the Church consists of certified authorities of Christ and that Christ died and rose from the dead. Since both of these claims are actual things that took place (or did not take place), we can study and refine our knowledge regarding these events.

But a claim like “Scripture is the Word of God” cannot be refined or disproved. It is an arbitrary claim regarding the Transcendent. Since we cannot see the Transcendent, we cannot prove, refine or disprove that claim. Even if it were true, it would be unreasonable to assent to the claim.

Now I can keep replying to every little thing you wrote but I think the above captures your main objections and sufficiently addresses them. So looking forward to seeing what you have to say.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Umadbro?

I thought that since you were defending Catholic teaching, you believed that Scripture is inspired. I thought that was a common ground between us. If you are going to remove even that common ground, I’m not sure what point there is in discussing this.

I just saw this important part and thought I should address this as well. First, no, I am not mad.

If you read my OP on this thread, the very claim that “Scripture is the Word of God” is indeed under suspect still for the purpose of this discussion. Why? Because we are talking here about the reasoning for essentially picking a religion.

Since “Scripture is the Word of God” is a Transcendent claim, we cannot pick that out of nowhere to use as a basis for becoming Christians. That would be unreasonable.

So as said in my above two posts to you (please do read them too), the difference in Protestantism (or any other religion for that matter) and Catholicism is on this very issue. Catholics claim that the assent is based on the fact that she has the teaching authority passed down to her by Christ. They claim Christ is authoritative to teach regarding the Transcendent because of his death and resurrection. Since this is not a Transcendent truth and something every field of knowledge incorporates, we can verify by looking in to history as to whether these events did indeed take place or whether it is even correct to assume as such. Our thinking to arrive at this conclusion can be further studied, refined, or refuted since we are speaking of something that took place and then also takes place in the natural world today.

On the other hand, claims like “Bible is the Word of God” cannot be experienced through ones senses. So we don’t know what makes something the “Word of God”. It is a Transcendent claim itself and therefore not something we can know or observe to be true as mere human beings. That also means that if one were to assent on such a claim, there is no way to study, refine or refute ones error. Since no one can disprove to you that the Bible is the Word of God, you can keep believing it even when it maybe a lie. You can further postulate propositions as to what the Bible says and again there can be no one to refine or correct you because the propositions themselves speak of Transcendent truths. This does not apply just to you or Protestants but also to those who like to claim various Holy Texts or Transcendent claim as being from God and use that as a starting point in their religion (which is almost every religion other than Catholicism).

Now to highlight the problem with derived propositions, if we were to take a passage like John 6. You might say Christ speaks figuratively. Another might say he is speaking of his actual body and blood and instituting a sacrament that is necessary for salvation. Someone else might say he was speaking of neither and just testing obedience. Since all of these claims are logically possible, and all of these claims are speaking of Transcendent truths, one can continue to believe whichever they want and no one can have grounds to correct them. They themselves have no real reasonable grounds or need to correct themselves either other than perhaps how they feel on that day.

In short, Catholics assent based on reason that you can accept, challenge, study and refute. Every proposition I listed in my OP can be studied, refined or refuted using evidence. Same is not true for Protestantism. Protestantism assents arbitrarily to a claim like “Scripture is the Word of God” that cannot be studied, challenged or refuted since it speaks of a Transcendent truth.

Therefore Catholicism is reasonable while Protestantism is unreasonable.

But please do read my above posts to you as well.

 

[brb3]

@ CY CARL, KOINEMAN, OR BRB3–or anyone else of protestant persuasion:

No takers?

At what specific point in time, or by what specific event–amounting to Divine Revleation–was the same Church which was invested with Authority by Christ, supposedly divested of same, such that Sola Scriptura, and all of it’s consequent churches, were or are, somehow divinely authorized?

Sola scriptura is not prophesized, or otherwise provided for in the Bible; the Bible itself, is not even prophesized. But Christ’s Church WAS prophesized, and clearly discernible from scritpure, and clearly discernible from history.

So it must have been divested of its authority, by some sort of divne revelation, divine intervention, or something amounting to such.

Where is that? What is that?

Nope …it doesn’t have to of been divested of …although Revelation speaks of what can happen to a Church, if it doesn’t keep the Apostolic mission alive.

The CC has the Authority, ---- but, it has not always used it wisely. Just look at what we have currently been thru, with Priest scandals !! Was this handled wisely by those in ‘authority’ ??

Did not Christ say the Gentile branches might be pruned, to bear more fruit, but if they don’t … they will be ‘removed’ permanently !!

 

[Eufrosnia]

Nope …it doesn’t have to of been divested of …although Revelation speaks of what can happen to a Church, if it doesn’t keep the Apostolic mission alive.

The CC has the Authority, ---- but, it has not always used it wisely. Just look at what we have currently been thru, with Priest scandals !! Was this handled wisely by those in ‘authority’ ??

Did not Christ say the Gentile branches might be pruned, to bear more fruit, but if they don’t … they will be ‘removed’ permanently !!

First, the teaching authority of the Church has clarified many times that the infallibility only extends to teachings. The laws of the Church are binding on the will as well but they are not infallible. Neither are the Priests, Bishops or Popes in their character.

So you are attacking a straw man. A Pope himself may one day commit a heinous sin or sins. It does not undermine the authority he has to teach.

If a doctor rapes a patient, it does not mean that the Doctor has no medical expertise or authority to give treatment. Yes? So the claim to authority stands or falls on something else than the behavior of the individuals with authority.

So you shouldn’t assent to the Catholic Church because the Pope and priests looked like Angels and neither should reject it on the basis that they are sinners.

 

[Goya]

Nope …it doesn’t have to of been divested of …although Revelation speaks of what can happen to a Church, if it doesn’t keep the Apostolic mission alive.

The CC has the Authority, ---- but, it has not always used it wisely. Just look at what we have currently been thru, with Priest scandals !! Was this handled wisely by those in ‘authority’ ??

Did not Christ say the Gentile branches might be pruned, to bear more fruit, but if they don’t … they will be ‘removed’ permanently !!

Clearly the Church’s leaders have not alwayes exercised their authority, or discharged theri duties, wisely. No one can rationally argue against that (without symultaneously compromising their own credibility).

But Judas Iscariot sold out Our Lord for 30 ducats (or whatever that denomination is…). Did that serve to discredit all of the Apostles? Of course not. And when St. Peter denied Our Lord 3x…did that serve to completely discredit the Apostles? Of course not. Not even him, in whom the Lord entrusted the Keys to the Kingdom…and thrice charged him to ‘feed [His] sheep’, subsequent thereto! And what of the rest of the Apostles–who abandoned Our Lord during His Passion (save St. John)–did that serve to discredit the Apostles? Nope. And of Judas…who can reconcile the notion of the God of infinite mercy, who gave His only begotten Son to the world, in order to redeem fallen Man, would deny Judas forgiveness…had he only repented, and aske for it? Judas’ fatal flaw, wasn’t in the betrayal-- but in the failure of his faith, in God’s infinite mercy.

…and what of the Jews? How many times did the Jews stumble, yet the Lord came back repeatedly to guide and protect them? Out of Egypt, working through Moses, etc…

…even sending His only begotten Son to and through them, for their (and ultimately the world’s) Redemption and Salvation…yet it took a Divine episode, for their status as Fiduciary of the Faith/Custodian of the Word of God…to be essentially divested–between the crucifixion, and subsequent rejection, post pentecost. (of course Jews would disagree with this contention, but as between Christians…this is how we see it–this is how WE, became the ‘chosen people’–the ‘People of God’–as evidenced by the way the Vat II doc’s go to pains, to describe the Church, as a people).

Hence to accept that the Church that Christ founded was somehow divested of the authority with which she was entrusted, would take nothing less than a Divine episode–or some sort of Divine Revelation, or equivalent (e.g.–a prophet, prophecy, or such). Else you confess that the ‘gates of Hades’ prevailed against her.

Nothing I’ve seen from 'the reformation amounts to such a claim. It’s all ‘enlightenment’ based reasoning (flawed, at that)–not biblical. At all. In fact, quite inconsistent.

This concept btw, wasn’t lost on Joseph Smith. He claimed Divine Revelation. Fruity as he was, at least he grasped this (to me, anyway) seemingly elementary conceopt.

Christ founded a Chruch. That is therefor, an act and design of Divinity. It would take a comparable act of divnity, to divest THAT CHURCH, of the authority HE invested her with.

That doesn’t mean the Church is impeccable, or even perfect–but her flaws don’t amount to leave to start a whole new ‘church’, without some sort of Divine authority to amend Christ’s plan.

 

[brb3]

If a doctor rapes a patient, it does not mean that the Doctor has no medical expertise or authority to give treatment. Yes? So the claim to authority stands or falls on something else than the behavior of the individuals with authority.

Ha ! Bad example above … you prove my point.
The CC has not used good judgment in many cases … and allowed grievous sins to continue.

That heinous doctor above … just violated his Hippocratic Oath, and has forfeited his authority to practice medicine, license suspended or now revoked by state.

But, Christ keeps score on the CC … and if they don’t keep their oaths to him — their branch will be removed … and given to another !!

 

[aidanbradypop]

But, Christ keeps score on the CC … and if they don’t keep their oaths to him — their branch will be removed … and given to another !!

:nope:

 

[brb3]

:nope:

Don’t be so sure !! God did so repeatedly in the OT age. Would raise up a new Prophet … whenever his Priesthood went astray …:yup:

 

[Goya]

Ha ! Bad example above … you prove my point.
The CC has not used good judgment in many cases … and allowed grievous sins to continue.

That heinous doctor above … just violated his Hippocratic Oath, and has forfeited his authority to practice medicine, license suspended or now revoked by state.

But, Christ keeps score on the CC … and ***if they don’t keep their oaths to him — their branch will be removed … and given to another ***!!

Not exactly the most biblical way to phrase things (ref. ‘keeping score’), but we’ll go with it…

Who ‘keeps the score?’ Christ. Who makes the determination as to whether ‘their branch will be removed’? Christ.

How then, would such a ‘branch’ be removed?

Really, by one of exactly 2 ways:

1. By and through the Church that Christ founded–and therefore derivatively, by and through Christ, according to the authority He Himself invested her with; or
2. If it were the Church herself (as so many protestants claim that she is now ‘apostate’)–by/through some sort of divine episide–divine revelation, divine intervention, prophecy, through a prophet, or the like–and again, therefore, derivatively, by/through Christ.

Not by some Martin Luther type character, who doesn’t even claim any sort of divine inspiration. Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, et. al., were intelligent men, I suppose; enlightened, learned, well read, well educated, perhaps even brilliant…

…but mere men, with no claim to divine authority whatsoever.

The most enlightened, brilliant, most eloquently stated case against the Church that Chirst founded, fails, absent DIVINE AUTHORITY.

PERIOD.

Else you proclaim Christ a liar.

It takes nothing less than divinity, to undo, or substantially amend, that which was established and created, divinely.

By way of parallel/analogy:

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

 

[Tomster]

Not exactly the most biblical way to phrase things (ref. ‘keeping score’), but we’ll go with it…

Who ‘keeps the score?’ Christ. Who makes the determination as to whether ‘their branch will be removed’? Christ.

How then, would such a ‘branch’ be removed?

Really, by one of exactly 2 ways:

1. By and through the Church that Christ founded–and therefore derivatively, by and through Christ, according to the authority He Himself invested her with; or
2. If it were the Church herself (as so many protestants claim that she is now ‘apostate’)–by/through some sort of divine episide–divine revelation, divine intervention, prophecy, through a prophet, or the like–and again, therefore, derivatively, by/through Christ.

Not by some Martin Luther type character, who doesn’t even claim any sort of divine inspiration. Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, et. al., were intelligent men, I suppose; enlightened, learned, well read, well educated, perhaps even brilliant…

…but mere men, with no claim to divine authority whatsoever.

The most enlightened, brilliant, most eloquently stated case against the Church that Chirst founded, fails, absent DIVINE AUTHORITY.

PERIOD.

Else you proclaim Christ a liar.

It takes nothing less than divinity, to undo, or substantially amend, that which was established and created, divinely.

By way of parallel/analogy:

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.

Great parallel/analogy.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Ha ! Bad example above … you prove my point.
The CC has not used good judgment in many cases … and allowed grievous sins to continue.

That heinous doctor above … just violated his Hippocratic Oath, and has forfeited his authority to practice medicine, license suspended or now revoked by state.

But, Christ keeps score on the CC … and if they don’t keep their oaths to him — their branch will be removed … and given to another !!

I think you need to perhaps understand the example better. If a Doctor rapes the patient, the Doctor still has the medical expertise. It does not all of a sudden leave him.

Nothing the Church can do, can violate its authority unless it is something historical in the process itself. If the argument I presented in my OP stands, then the Catholic Church will always have authority as long as it continues to certify and institute new successors.

As for Protestants, they are yet to give a reason for their faith. Hence as far as anyone is concerned, it is an arbitrary unreasonable assent. Now as a Protestant, I expect you to be defending and giving reasons for Protestantism. But you have not done so on this thread. Is it because there are none and it is indeed a blind arbitrary assent to a claim that “Scripture is the Word of God”?

 

[Tomster]

Sorry, I already went through my pro-Catholic stage, when I spent considerable time examining the claims of the church and actually wanting the RCC to be proven true. In the end, I realized that they are preaching another gospel. That is not a charge I make lightly, but it is the inevitable conclusion I’ve come to. Therefore, the RCC is no “home” for me to come to, for if I were to embrace RC teaching wholeheartedly, I would inevitably take my eyes off of Christ and end up trusting something other than His redemptive work, and that is perilous to do.

Perhaps a different approach then.

Take a look at Acts 17:10-15

Here we see that the Jews of Beroea were the only ones not to reject St. Paul’s teaching. They immediately began a search of Scriptures, which led them to discover the truth of the Gospel.

Now it must be admitted that here is a case where searching the Scriptures was not sufficient. The Scriptures they were seaching were basically the Old Testament Scriptures.
The content of the New Testament was far from being finalized. What did these very upright people do? They listened to the proclamation of St. Paul. No written word here. It was the authoritative, verbal, oral, proclamation of the Word of God by St. Paul. Why do you suppose these Beroeans adhered to St. Paul’s authoritative, verbal, oral teachings?

Once you come to an understanding of true authority, as exemplified by St. Paul teaching the Beroeans, it shouldn’t be to difficult for you to see what St. Paul taught authoritatively, orally and with pen regarding the true nature of the authority and the Church and where this authority originates and why it must be so.

Additionally, a straight line can be drawn from St. Paul’s blinding conversion to his doctrinal teaching regarding the authority of the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body.

“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”

 

[Eufrosnia]

Don’t be so sure !! God did so repeatedly in the OT age. Would raise up a new Prophet … whenever his Priesthood went astray …:yup:

Oh I see. So you are waiting for a new Prophet I take it? Have you heard of Islam by any chance? They claim the very thing you are supporting right now. Should we assent to Prophet Mohammed, then?

In all of this, you are entering in to more and more murky waters because you are not asking the objective question “Who has authority?”.

Then you are also forgetting that this authority is not actually diminished by someone who has a bad character. So even if there will one day be a Pedophile Pope (God forbid), the authority of the office will still be valid and will be passed down. To undermine the authority of the knowledge the individual teaches because of his/her character is a logical fallacy.

Bottom line here is that we don’t assent to any religion because we blindly assent to any arbitrary claim without reason. Either the claim for assent is a verifiable claim or that religion is unworthy of assent.

Catholicism presents its case for Authority in the way I presented in my OP. Each of the premises in that reasoning can be studied, criticized, refined and refuted. I first become Catholic because the premises to my best analysis is valid. Every individual can do the study, get insight from others and see the merits for themselves. Then they can assent or reject it based on their own personal decision after evaluating the evidence. The process after assent is a different issue but it is outside the scope of this thread.

On the other hand, Protestantism and all other religions require the person to assent to a Transcendent claim first i.e. Scripture is the Word of God, Five Solas, Person X is a prophet, Person Y is God etc. Since none of those claims, because they are Transcendent, can be studied, refined, criticized or refuted, assenting to it is unreasonable. You might as well dream up a story about a pink invisible pony who can cure diseases and communicates the word of God and believe it to be true. It is just unreasonable.

So my question to you is, do you have reasons to give me for Protestantism? Catholicism being false is not reason for Protestantism to be true, if that is what you have been thinking all this time. Unless you have solid reasons to give me for Protestantism, you are assenting to some arbitrary religion. That is unreasonable.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Don’t be so sure !! God did so repeatedly in the OT age. Would raise up a new Prophet … whenever his Priesthood went astray …:yup:

So we deny what Christ said about the Church? :nope:

 

[brb3]

So my question to you is, do you have reasons to give me for Protestantism? Catholicism being false is not reason for Protestantism to be true, if that is what you have been thinking all this time. Unless you have solid reasons to give me for Protestantism, you are assenting to some arbitrary religion. That is unreasonable.

Does Protestantism have any Authority ? Is that your point ?
Well yes, it does ---- when it preaches the Gospel, and upholds/preaches the teachings of Christ, and evangelizes for Christianity … to all the nations.

And, who is their authority ? Christ, HS, and their WORD/TESTIMONY — the Bible [the Gold Standard].

Now, my question to you … Can only the Catholic Church witness for Christ … or can the Protestants also ?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Does Protestantism have any Authority ? Is that your point ?
Well yes, it does ---- when it preaches the Gospel, and upholds/preaches the teachings of Christ, and evangelizes for Christianity … to all the nations.

And, who is their authority ? Christ, HS, and their WORD/TESTIMONY — the Bible [the Gold Standard].

Now, my question to you … Can only the Catholic Church witness for Christ … or can the Protestants also ?

No let me boil this question down to you. How do Protestants come to know that “Scripture is the Word of God”? In other words, how do you know that the “Bible (is) the Gold Standard”? Simple question and I hope to see a straight forward answer.