Catch-22

[Thaladan]

The Catholic Church was given its authority by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

The Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church, which has declared it to be divinely inspired.

So, the Catholic Church’s authority ultimately comes from the Bible, and the Bible’s authority comes from the Church, right?

It’s like me writing a book that declares that I am infallible. Why am I infallible? Because the book says so. But why’s the book right? Because I’m infallible and I say it’s right.

I’ve seen this argument presented by an atheist before, and it really trips me up. Can someone help me out?

 

[dronald]

The Catholic Church was given its authority by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

The Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church, which has declared it to be divinely inspired.

So, the Catholic Church’s authority ultimately comes from the Bible, and the Bible’s authority comes from the Church, right?

It’s like me writing a book that declares that I am infallible. Why am I infallible? Because the book says so. But why’s the book right? Because I’m infallible and I say it’s right.

I’ve seen this argument presented by an atheist before, and it really trips me up. Can someone help me out?

You even admitted that the original authority was Jesus Christ, so I don’t see how this is circular. The Bible says what Jesus said, and the CC gets its authority from Him and not the Bible. His words were simply recorded in the Bible.

 

[Rete]

More to the point, for several decades, there were no Gospels. The authority comes from Christ, and the Gospels simply relate the news. It would be like confusing a newspaper article with the event it reports.

 

[pablope]

The Catholic Church was given its authority by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

I think you meant here…as recounted in the Gospels…particulary Matt 16?

The Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church, which has declared it to be divinely inspired.

 

[thenobes]

The Catholic Church was given its authority by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

The Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church, which has declared it to be divinely inspired.

So, the Catholic Church’s authority ultimately comes from the Bible, and the Bible’s authority comes from the Church, right?

It’s like me writing a book that declares that I am infallible. Why am I infallible? Because the book says so. But why’s the book right? Because I’m infallible and I say it’s right.

I’ve seen this argument presented by an atheist before, and it really trips me up. Can someone help me out?

This is related to the “spiral” argument for the inspiration of Scriptures.

In this argument, first of all, one takes the NT as history. Reading it, one is convinced by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is Divine and founded a church with the charism of infallibity. Using this infallibity, the church then declares that scriptures is the inspired word of God.

Thus the source of the declaration of the scriptures as being inspired is the Holy Spirit.

Likewise the authority of the church.

peace
steve

 

[JOE_OBERR]

The Catholic Church was given its authority by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

True, Jesus Christ gave the Catholic Church its authority. He did this while on earth, before he ascended to heaven in 33 AD. And true it is recorded in the bible. But that is not where the authority from Jesus to his Church originated. He did it by divine fiat and communicating this authority to St Peter and the apostles. There was no bible, as we know it today, until 390 AD due to the action of the Church he founded as that was the only institution that had the authority to decide which books were inspired and belonged in the bible. Prior to 390 AD no one had a clue as to what the final composition of the bible would be, St Augustine was close but even he missed it. Only the Magisterium, headed by the Pope, can teach on such matters. Over 200 books written after Jesus died were thought to be inspired and only 27 were accepted as canonical.

Around 43 AD or so the gospel narratives began to be written and only certain elements of what Jesus did and taught is recorded in these narratives. One element included is how Jesus gave authority to Peter, he even changed Peter’s name which is extremely rare in the bible and is only done to indicate something significant has occurred. It could easily have been omitted from the four written gospels but that would not have changed anything as Christianity does not come from one’s guesswork on bible verses. It comes from the oral word of God the Apostles learned directly from Jesus and preached starting on Pentecost Sunday. This is the whole CATHOLIC Faith. There is no requirement for the written word of God, the bible, to reflect that the Catholic Church exists with authority from God. Of course the written word of God is very helpful and useful, but not required as the Church existed from 33 to 390 AD without it.

The Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church, which has declared it to be divinely inspired.

True, as without the Catholic Church there would be no bible as we have it today, possibly only the OT, and probably the Septuagint version.

So, the Catholic Church’s authority ultimately comes from the Bible, and the Bible’s authority comes from the Church, right?

False premise as noted in my first response, the CC’s authority does not come from the bible. There is evidence of it in the bible, but we know the CC’s authority comes from Christ because he gave the Apostles that authority, the commission to preach the word of God and this strong and constant tradition or witness of history, better know as Apostolic Tradition, has come down to us in the oral word of God, the Catholic Faith, 2000 years later. Same way you know that Alexander the Great lived four centuries before Christ, that Caesar ruled the Roman Empire and that King John in 1215 signed the Magna Carta. This is just a short list of things we know because of what’s called the strong and constant tradition that these things/people actually happened/lived.

 

[fhansen]

The Catholic Church was given its authority by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

The Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church, which has declared it to be divinely inspired.

So, the Catholic Church’s authority ultimately comes from the Bible, and the Bible’s authority comes from the Church, right?

It’s like me writing a book that declares that I am infallible. Why am I infallible? Because the book says so. But why’s the book right? Because I’m infallible and I say it’s right.

I’ve seen this argument presented by an atheist before, and it really trips me up. Can someone help me out?

No, the CC’s authority came from God, not the bible. The Church simply uses scripture to support her various positions, as others do as well.

 

[ericc]

The Catholic Church was given its authority by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

The Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church, which has declared it to be divinely inspired.

So, the Catholic Church’s authority ultimately comes from the Bible, and the Bible’s authority comes from the Church, right?

It’s like me writing a book that declares that I am infallible. Why am I infallible? Because the book says so. But why’s the book right? Because I’m infallible and I say it’s right.

I’ve seen this argument presented by an atheist before, and it really trips me up. Can someone help me out?

You got it all wrong. The Bible in itself exercises no authority. Authority comes from God and his appointees, not books. There was no Bible in the first few centuries. You only have the Church. The Bible is the Church’s documentation of God’s love story for mankind (among other things). The documentation was finally completed in due course but unfortunately certain printers think a thinner Bible makes life easier for them.

 

[Thaladan]

dronald, fhansen, and ericc: yes, I realise the Church’s authority comes from God, but it’s still via the Bible. To make further use of my earlier example, it’s like me writing a book which claims that God has made me infallible. Oh look, I’m infallible because God says so in this book. But why should we believe the book? Because I’m infallible and I declare it to be divinely inspired.

Attributing the Church’s authority to God does not avoid the fact that it’s coming through the Bible. You’re just adding in an extra initial step in the endless circle.

JOE OBERR and Rete, I believe you two are basically saying that the Church’s authority comes from the events related in the Bible, not the Bible itself. But, again, all you’re doing is adding an extra step: I met a bloke who said I was infallible. Someone else then wrote a book about it. I’m declaring this book to be divinely inspired. But where did I get the authority to do this? Look, it’s in the book, this bloke said I was infallible, and that’s the authority I’m using to declare this book to be divinely inspired.

pablope… I really can’t be bothered to play along with your word games.

In this argument, first of all, one takes the NT as history. Reading it, one is convinced by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is Divine and founded a church with the charism of infallibity. Using this infallibity, the church then declares that scriptures is the inspired word of God.

Why is one necessarily convinced by the Holy Spirit that just by reading the New Testament that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and bestowed on it the charism of infallibility? In order for the New Testament to have any supernatural credibility, it first has to be established to be divinely inspired, but that just leads right back to the never-ending circle.

I would like to make clear, before I finish, that I am not deliberately looking for a fight here. I do genuinely want an satisfying answer, but honestly all the responses so far have been poor.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Suppose we consider the Bible to be just like any other text. Now, most texts don’t make claims about themselves, but the Bible does. The Bible claims to be a message from God to man, for the fulfillment of man’s calling and the satisfaction of God’s desire to be one with man. So it would make sense to evaluate this claim about itself that the Bible makes.

How do we evaluate the Bible’s claims? I don’t think we simply take the Church’s word for it. Well, we might look at history. Did Jesus really live? Was he crucified? Yes. This is one of the most widely attested facts of ancient history. The only reason it is at all controversial is because people pretend like the Bible is *one *book. Numerous books of the Bible independently confirm Jesus’s life and death. (As do other historical sources).

Of course, they also confirm his resurrection. This is an extraordinary claim, so we shouldn’t just immediately accept it. But history also tells us that, in the first generations of Christians, hundreds of them died for the faith. Would you die for something you knew was a lie? Are there other events in history where such a diverse group of people were martyred for something they knew was a cooked-up story?

This sort of evidence brings us a long ways to believing in the resurrection, I think, but maybe not quite there. Now we have to do some hypothetical thinking. Suppose there is a God, and suppose Jesus lived and was resurrected, and sent the Holy Spirit. If that were all true, and the Bible were all true – these are just "if"s, mind you – then God would provide the power of faith to everyone who asked, so that we could believe these things. Even the resurrection.

Now ask yourself: do I have that power of faith? Ask for that power of faith. Faith in Jesus, in his death and resurrection, which precedes faith in the gospels.

This is what I have done, and I have found in myself the power to believe the unbelievable, that Christ was raised from the dead. Blessed be God!

Notice that I never asked you to believe something without evidence, in this post. There is the evidence of history, and then there is the evidence of faith, which is manifested in the indwelling power of God. Hope this helps!

P.S. By the way, I tend to agree that claims to infallibility are incoherent. But that’s not really relevant to the evidence for Christianity.

 

[MarcoPolo]

dronald, fhansen, and ericc: yes, I realise the Church’s authority comes from God, but it’s still via the Bible.

No, it’s not “via” the Bible, as others already pointed out. The Apostles exercised their ministry prior to the writing of the New Testament you claim to be the source for the authority they exercised before it even existed. You can see extra-biblical records, such as Clement’s letter to the Corinthians from the 1st century that echoes this matter of historical record also, and other writings such as from Ignatius or Justin or Irenaeus of the next generations saying the same things. Early records of miracles even unto today are signs that also validate the divine pedigree of the Church’s authority.

But, point being, if Christ had divine authority and gave that to his apostles, why should that authority be invalidated simply because they wrote down the giving of the gift? Otherwise, you end up arguing that it’s impossible for Christ to have given his authority to apostles. That does not make sense.

 

[fhansen]

dronald, fhansen, and ericc: yes, I realise the Church’s authority comes from God, but it’s still via the Bible. To make further use of my earlier example, it’s like me writing a book which claims that God has made me infallible. Oh look, I’m infallible because God says so in this book. But why should we believe the book? Because I’m infallible and I declare it to be divinely inspired.

Attributing the Church’s authority to God does not avoid the fact that it’s coming through the Bible. You’re just adding in an extra initial step in the endless circle…

Church authority in no way comes from the bible, whether or not the bible happens to mention it. The authority was simply given by God, and this is the continuous legacy since the beginning of Christianity. We can reject or accept this claim of authority- that she received it at all- but in any case Catholicism is not a “religion of the book”, as the Catechism makes clear. IOW, the Catholic faith is not based on Scripture, as is the faith of most Protestant sects.

The tenets of the CC are true because the Church says they’re true. The tenets of many non-Catholic Christian sects are true because, so they claim, scripture says they’re true. This is why the Catholic Church makes the rather bold claim that she’s infallible in matters of faith and morals, something scripture doesn’t claim about itself, even though sola scriptura proponents try to make the claim that scripture somehow possesses just that kind of authority, as if it can speak for itself, even though a variety of interpreters come up with a variety of interpretations as to the meaning of scripture on a variety of issues.

 

[steve_b]

You even admitted that the original authority was Jesus Christ, …[snip]

True.

However, as I read Thaladan’s post, I think he poses a different issue. He poses a problem in argumentation we often see on these forums.

here’s Thaladan’s post again. As I understand it, I’m highlighting the argument being posed to him. If I’m wrong I’m sure Thaladan will correct me.

:
The Catholic Church was given its authority by Jesus Christ in the Bible. The Bible’s authority comes from the Catholic Church, which has declared it to be divinely inspired.

So, the Catholic Church’s authority ultimately comes from the Bible, and the Bible’s authority comes from the Church, right? It’s like me writing a book that declares that I am infallible. Why am I infallible? Because the book says so. But why’s the book right? Because I’m infallible and I say it’s right.

I’ve seen this argument presented by an atheist before, and it really trips me up. Can someone help me out?

Here’s what I would say to those folks

• The Catholic Church does NOT get her authority from the bible that she wrote and canonized. That’s right, ALL the writers of scripture, which wasn’t considered scripture at the time of their writing, were in the Church they wrote to and for. The only Church Jesus established on Peter as head, and the apostles. The Catholic Church. Therefore, ALL authority, comes from Jesus through His Church, the pillar and foundation of truth …period dot end of sentence. That’s what makes this Church the pillar and foundation of truth. THAT also eliminates circular argument. This entire faith and all the promises Jesus gave, are deposited in the Catholic Church by Jesus her founder.

To finish his point suggested in the title of the thread. It puts everyone outside the Catholic Church in a catch 22. Outside of which there is no salvation. Either one joins her in this life or be lost in eternity…There’s the catch

Re: Ignorance

Their is a possibility, when life ends for the one outside the Church, after Jesus has given them ample grace and opportunities in this life to be in His Church but they don’t join, Jesus judges them to have been sufficiently and innocently ignorant of these truths… enough so, to escape perdition. Keeping in mind, one can’t fool God. Feigned ignorance isn’t ignorance at all. Such a person is fully culpable for what they’ve done.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

• The Catholic Church does NOT get her authority from the bible that she wrote and canonized. That’s right, ALL the writers of scripture, which wasn’t considered scripture at the time of their writing, were in the Church they wrote to and for. The only Church Jesus established on Peter as head, and the apostles. The Catholic Church. Therefore, ALL authority, comes from Jesus through His Church, the pillar and foundation of truth …period dot end of sentence. That’s what makes this Church the pillar and foundation of truth. THAT also eliminates circular argument. This entire faith and all the promises Jesus gave, are deposited in the Catholic Church by Jesus her founder.

No Jews wrote the Bible? Really?

 

[steve_b]

No Jews wrote the Bible? Really?

Well, since in the beginning all the writers of both testaments were Jews, that’s a good point. even though there WAS no “bible” in the 1st century either. The Jews of the 1st century didn’t have a closed OT canon.

It doesn’t deny Catholic Jews wrote the NT, writing to and for the Catholic Church which they were in. And the Catholic Church established both OT and NT in the council of Rome 381. The same canon we have today.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, since in the beginning all the writers of both testaments were Jews, that’s a good point. even though there WAS no “bible” in the 1st century either. The Jews of the 1st century didn’t have a closed OT canon.

It doesn’t deny Catholic Jews wrote the NT, writing to and for the Catholic Church which they were in. And the Catholic Church established both OT and NT in the council of Rome 381. The same canon we have today.

But I think this is another circular argument. Why do you say that the NT writers were Catholic? Because the Bible is the work of the Catholic Church. But why do you say that the Bible is the work of the Catholic Church? Because the NT writers were Catholic.

Surely I’m missing something here.

 

[pablope]

dronald, fhansen, a

pablope… I really can’t be bothered to play along with your word games.

I would like to make clear, before I finish, that I am not deliberately looking for a fight here. I do genuinely want an satisfying answer, but honestly all the responses so far have been poor.

What word games are you talking about?

I asked questions so that we can probe your thoughts and your understanding of terms, like infallibility.

Example…what do you understand by infallibity? And what does the Church say or understand about infallibility?

Your understanding of infallible may be different from how the CC understands the term.

That is why I asked…how can the Bible be infallible? (when you take into account what the Church defines the term.

And one more thing…I said…or even the Bible says the pillar and ground of truth is the Church…not the Bible?

Do you believe this or not? How is this a word game?

1 Timothy 3:15

15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[fhansen]

But I think this is another circular argument. Why do you say that the NT writers were Catholic? Because the Bible is the work of the Catholic Church. But why do you say that the Bible is the work of the Catholic Church? Because the NT writers were Catholic.

Surely I’m missing something here.

But the reason we say the NT writers were Catholic is simply because the Church traces its history back to the foundations of the Christian faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But the reason we say the NT writers were Catholic is simply because the Church traces its history back to the foundations of the Christian faith.

I don’t deny that. But, if arguing with a Protestant, this would not suffice as proof that, say, Peter, was a Catholic Jew, not simply a Christianized Jew. Personally, I don’t think the distinction matters much, unless we’re talking about something like the existence of the papacy, for which we have other historical evidence to look to.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t deny that. But, if arguing with a Protestant, this would not suffice as proof that, say, Peter, was a Catholic Jew, not simply a Christianized Jew. Personally, I don’t think the distinction matters much, unless we’re talking about something like the existence of the papacy, for which we have other historical evidence to look to.

I guess the truth is that we can’t prove the divine authorship of either scripture or the church. I simply hear the voice of God in both and hopefully respond. accordingly.