Catholicity of the Early Church

[PRmerger]

b/c of the historical testimony in its favour

What does that mean? It kinda sounds like Sacred Tradition to me.

 

[PRmerger]

so you think that I reject the inspiration of the phoenix story b/c it isn’t located elsewhere in the Bible?..and not b/c the phoenix doesn’t exist. Think again.

No, Radical.

You reject something as not being inspired because it contains things that are not part of the kergyma.

Now, how do you know if it’s part of the kergyma?

Because the Catholic Church preserved it for you.

Incidentally, an atheist might argue that resurrection doesn’t exist. So this paradigm that you reject something because it’s not possible is, well, curious.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Very interesting. Would you agree that it was the Catholic Church (Eastern and Western) that affirmed the 73 book canon?

Yes

If yes, then is it possible for an authority (the Church, in this case) to affirm anything that is more authoritative than that authority itself? In other words, it seems to me that to make a ruling on something you have to have at least an equal authority as that which you are making a ruling on. Why would you claim this authority no longer exists?

If no, then what Church was it?

That would only hold true if the authority involved had somehow contributed to its inspiration. It didn’t. While God used the means of the prophets and Christ’s disciples to write Scripture, the authority of it comes from God Himself, due to the fact that it is His word.

Using your argument above, I could say that since the Church affirmed that Christ is the begotten Son of God, and is both human and divine etc., the Church’s authority is greater than Christ’s.

What the Church did was receive and acknowledge what was already true by virtue of its divine authorship.

 

[onemangang]

Yes

That would only hold true if the authority involved had somehow contributed to its inspiration. It didn’t. While God used the means of the prophets and Christ’s disciples to write Scripture, the authority of it comes from God Himself, due to the fact that it is His word.

Using your argument above, I could say that since the Church affirmed that Christ is the begotten Son of God, and is both human and divine etc., the Church’s authority is greater than Christ’s.

I look at it like this, when God used the prophets and disciples, they were active participants, partaking in the divine, while writing or discerning the word. God is principle over all authority, whence the prophets and disciples are principled in their authority, subject to the principle authority ie:God

The Church is partaking in, “the One Divine authority,” when declaring Scripture that acknowledges who is Christ, the logos of God. So the Church is both human and divine as an active participant in the Divine, while embodied in Flesh.

What the Church did was receive and acknowledge what was already true by virtue of its divine authorship.

I would like to phrase this as, "What the Church did as active participants in the divine nature, was receive and acknowledge what was already true by virtue of the divine author.

 

[PRmerger]

absolutely! There is no way that I could reject a work such as the first epistle of Clement on say, the fact that it asserts that the phoenix lives 500 years, dies and the kinda rises again.

so you think that I reject the inspiration of the phoenix story b/c it isn’t located elsewhere in the Bible?..and not b/c the phoenix doesn’t exist. Think again.

This is a curious position to assert: I reject something as not being inspired because it’s not in the Bible. And because it doesn’t exist.

It prompts the question: do you believe in angels because of personal experience or because they are found in the Scriptures?**

And that prompts another question, Radical: do you have a pre-conceived idea, and then find the early Christian texts that support this pre-conceived idea or do you start with a blank slate, and then believe that which the Scriptures proffer?

It certainly sounds as if you do the former: phoenixes don’t exist, therefore Clement’s epistle is not inspired.

If so, then to you! You have just conformed yourself to the Catholic paradigm of Sacred Tradition! You understand that the Scriptures conform themselves to that which was already a “pre-conceived idea”–that is, the paradosis, or the Oral Tradition of the kergyma.

**(Actually, I’ll amend that because it’s possible for you to say, “I have indeed had a private revelation by an angel!” and I wouldn’t argue with you on that. It’s entirely possible. But it would take us down a different road upon which I have no interest in embarking. Amended statement: do millions of Christians believe in angels because of personal experience, or because they are found in Scripture?)

 

[PRmerger]

That would only hold true if the authority involved had somehow contributed to its inspiration. It didn’t. While God used the means of the prophets and Christ’s disciples to write Scripture, the authority of it comes from God Himself, due to the fact that it is His word.

Indeed!

And just extend that paradigm, then, to the Church. The Catholic position is that God uses the means of the Church to proclaim His Word, the authority of it comes from God Himself.

Just like Paul himself says that he saves others*, (what’s tacitly understood is that he does this only through his union with Christ and the authority given by God to save), the Church also proclaims that she saves (tacitly understood that she does this only through her union with Christ and the authority given by God to save.)

*[BIBLEDRB]Romans 11:14[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 9:22[/BIBLEDRB]

What the Church did was receive and acknowledge what was already true by virtue of its divine authorship.

'zactly!

This is very Catholic of you to say! :bounce:

 

[ChrisB103]

That would only hold true if the authority involved had somehow contributed to its inspiration. It didn’t. While God used the means of the prophets and Christ’s disciples to write Scripture, the authority of it comes from God Himself, due to the fact that it is His word.

Of course the authority of Scripture comes from God even though it was written by men. However, the authority of the Church is also from God, even though it is spoken by men (although the characteristics of the inspiration between Scripture and the Magisterium are different). My argument was not that the Church’s authority is greater than Scripture’s authority, it was that it logically follows that the Church must be at least as authoritative as Scripture (the Catholic position of course is that they are equally authoritative since they both flow from the same diving wellspring).

Using your argument above, I could say that since the Church affirmed that Christ is the begotten Son of God, and is both human and divine etc., the Church’s authority is greater than Christ’s.

I’ve never quite understood why Protestants seek to separate Christ from the Church, the body of Christ, like they are two entirely separate entities. When the body of Christ speaks, how can it be said to be less authoritative than Christ? When we look at some relevant passages of Scripture, we see that there’s no way to remove the two from one another:

Matthew 16:18-19 “…you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
Matthew 18:17-18 “…if he will not hear the church, let him be to you as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”
1 Timothy 3:15 “…the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

And with what authority did Christ send the Church out? “As the Father has sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21) Christ sent out the Church with his very own authority. Why does it surprise you that Catholics view the Church to be as authoritative as the written Word?

What the Church did was receive and acknowledge what was already true by virtue of its divine authorship.

Agreed. But why can we trust that the Church acknowledged the correct books? I’m sure it seems that Catholics harp on this point frequently, so I’m sorry for any frustration it causes. However, I think the point here is very important, so I’ll dust the old harp off (though I’m sure this harp doesn’t spend enough time on the shelf to gather much dust )

 

[ChrisB103]

well, from the many manuscripts that we possess we can conclude that no existing book (in the Bible) can be reasonably said to have been copied and preserved w/o any error whatsoever…one might argue that no significant error has crept in, but not that no error whatsoever has crept in. With some error involved, how can we say any book is inerrant?..unless one fudges the meaning of inerrancy? Perhaps what we have is a reliable list of reliable books.

It seems to me that to call the books that we both recognize as inspired by the Holy Spirit simply reliable is quite a downgrade from being called inerrant. While I understand your point, I think it’s taken to a bit of an extreme. If you search the list of threads I’ve started, you’ll see that I started one about which text of the Bible is inerrant, and of course it’s the original manuscripts. So I agree with the basis of your point, but not its conclusion. No, we can’t be entirely certain that the Bible is without errors. In fact, it seems much more likely that there have been multiple errors of translation, etc., through the ages. However, from what I’ve heard, the oldest manuscripts of the Bibles really do line up quite well with our modern manuscripts. Still, the point stands. With multiple lists out there, why do you consider the traditional Protestant list more reliable than the Catholic list?

I don’t claim infallibility…no man should

No man should claim infallibility unless it is a gift that is given to him by God. The Successor to Peter and the College of Bishops as a whole have an inherited this gift (see Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18, respectively).

do you trust your mother? …even though she isn’t infallible? …there are levels of trust that exist for things that are less than perfect. Do you really think that the Bible put forward by the CC is free from any error whatsoever…no typos, no copyist errors, no translation errors?

I agree that there are levels of trust. However, your question shows a slightly flawed understanding of Catholic belief. We believe that the original manuscripts were/are inerrant. Of course man can introduce error, but manuscripts have shown this error to be pretty minimal. However, doesn’t the potential for error make the necessity of a living understanding that is passed down from bishop to bishop even more important?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Iggy

“What the Church did was receive and acknowledge what was already true by virtue of its divine authorship”

Amen,

The Unanimous Testimony of the Early Church Fathers in the Catholic Church is the NT Bible yet not fully complete. And the MUCH undefined [the not fully complete, for lack of a better wording] aspect is our “Sacred Tradition”.

The Bible and the CC come back around to this no matter how you slice the cake, for the simple truth is the Sacred Tradition and the CC existed before the Bible. As John tells us everything is not in scripture for its impossible. Jesus himself refers to the Jews Sacred Tradition which is not in the OT Bible and stated in Matthew. St. Paul refers to our Sacred Tradition also in Thessalonians. History clearly shows this over a 2000 year span.

Once we begin to understand this truth, then we see with clarity, the truth of the Church Jesus Christ established, the Mystical Body of Christ. And He is what makes His Church infallible. His teachings to a select group, ordained by Him in the Church who created Bible together with their students, to document their sacred tradition in a collective effort. And that collective effort is what sustains the infallible church, and that is exactly how the infallibility of the Church works.

When ones read Bible alone, basically they are reading Sacred Tradition yet not fully, and just not acknowledging this. For whatever reason, be it learned behavior, just a lack of understanding etc. An open mind is required. Here is the “why” to the issue of understanding the CC infallibility which is a stumbling block most will just have to come to see on their own. You simply cannot “make” anyone understand this.

Course this is not what I’m saying in your case, you are seeing much more clearly the Truth now.

So then you have a fallible collection of infallible statements and that is the glue that sustains the infallible agruement.

The infallible Church, know as the Catholic Church for 2000 years who Pope Benedict XVI now sits in St. Peters chair in Apostolic Succession. This Church in teaching is Sacred Tradition which we in fact are talking about. A Truth taught and given to Christs Apostles who all resided as ONE in the Catholic Church which is Christs Mystical Body. What makes the Church infallible is no different today than then. The Apostles in agreement which is covered by Gods covenant.

Great example of Sacred Tradition and all this is the CCC, here you see the Scripture verse coincide with the Early Church Fathers. And the Catechism is based on Justin Martrys early work just much more fully developed. Here you see the connection unfold.

So then when we say “This is what this Biblical verse means”. We are not in the least depending on Sola Scriptura. For that can only come down to one’s interpretation thus “opinion”. We are handing down the same TEACHING which existed from the Early Church Fathers and thus created the Bible. So then you hear the scripture from those who in fact were there, thus wrote the book or had it directly taught to them by the apostles, and clearly understand what they intended to say. When one simply reads the book without that understanding they are reduced to what they “think” the author meant to state, thus an opinion, usually based on another opinion, then different aspects of the reformation and theological theorys such as Calvin and all the rest.

Some come very close because the truth of the collective thinking begins to unfold for them such as with the Gospels. However when you reside in the Bible only mindset, then you reject an infallible truth…and that Truth is Sacred Tradition and the actual Church Jesus Christ established.

The question always comes into play; “Where is that in the Bible” and its not always clearly explained in Bible, however it is with Sacred Tradition. Just as with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Eucharist, etc, etc.

Thus when the church clarifys a definition, it is because they actually have that “Authority” guided by the Holy Spirit.

None of which means Protestants are not covered by Gods hand. Thats an untruth, there is, depending where in the Protestant Church one resides, a missing aspect of truth. And more important. one is existing outside the ONE CHURCH GOD desires, thus Communion with Rome which ALL are called to be in.

Here we find all different reasons, most just lack of understanding, trust, a bad experience with a Catholic or specific parish, blind faith in Gods will, and so forth, etc etc.

Peace

 

[adf417]

I agree that there are levels of trust. However, your question shows a slightly flawed understanding of Catholic belief. We believe that the original manuscripts were/are inerrant. Of course man can introduce error, but manuscripts have shown this error to be pretty minimal. However, doesn’t the potential for error make the necessity of a living understanding that is passed down from bishop to bishop even more important?

I have been wondering when someone would post this point - good job

The rest of the post is great too

Peace!!!

 

[Radical]

It seems to me that to call the books that we both recognize as inspired by the Holy Spirit simply reliable is quite a downgrade from being called inerrant.

true, but “inerrant” is inaccurate…so would you prefer “really reliable”?

However, from what I’ve heard, the oldest manuscripts of the Bibles really do line up quite well with our modern manuscripts.

agreed

With multiple lists out there, why do you consider the traditional Protestant list more reliable than the Catholic list?

based on the historical and sriptural evidence.

No man should claim infallibility unless it is a gift that is given to him by God. The Successor to Peter and the College of Bishops as a whole have an inherited this gift (see Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18, respectively).

I looked (yet again) at those verses…I didn’t see any mention of the power of infallibility nor any ability to pass on (or inherit) that unmentioned power. I doubt that you think that this is one of those cases where the text has been altered to delete reference to such a power. As such, WRT your claim of infallibilty for the CC, IMHO it comes down to being simply a position of out and out faith on your part…otherwise you are thrown to circular reasoning like this:

1. The CC assumes that the scriptures are historically accurate (you would get a lot of argument from non- Christians and liberal Christians as to the level of accuracy)
2. The CC interprets certain biblical passages to say that the Church (that Christ founded) possessed a never-ending gift of infallibility
3. The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded
4. Therefore, the CC is infallible; and
5. b/c the CC is infallible, its interpretations at #2 and #3 are absolutely correct

I agree that there are levels of trust. However, your question shows a slightly flawed understanding of Catholic belief. We believe that the original manuscripts were/are inerrant.

understood, but since the originals are forever lost, how one feels about them doesn’t really matter.

However, doesn’t the potential for error make the necessity of a living understanding that is passed down from bishop to bishop even more important?

That would be one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it would be to realize that, if the written record has been changed (even minimally) b/c of the involvement of man in its preservation, then the oral record would have likely undergone considerably more change b/c of the involvement of man in its preservation. I would go so far as to say that one should expect that additions occurred.

Second, the Jews had scripture for a long long time w/o having an infallible interpreter… are Christians somehow less able to cope (w/o an infallible interpreter) than were the Israelites? Obviously, such is not required for God to lead his children.

Finally, I note that the early Church was able to manage in the face of some nasty persecution w/o an infallible list of infallible books…obviously such is not required for God to lead his Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Second, the Jews had scripture for a long long time w/o having an infallible interpreter… are Christians somehow less able to cope (w/o an infallible interpreter) than were the Israelites? Obviously, such is not required for God to lead his children.

Of course. The question is how does God lead his children? And using what?

The answer: the Church.

Finally, I note that the early Church was able to manage in the face of some nasty persecution w/o an infallible list of infallible books…obviously such is not required for God to lead his Church.

Another great argument for Sacred Tradition!

Obviously, Scripture alone is not required.

 

[ChrisB103]

true, but “inerrant” is inaccurate…so would you prefer “really reliable”?

No, I’d prefer “inerrant” with the caveat that inerrancy refers to the original texts, and that it’s possible that minor errors have entered through man’s involvement of transcribing and translating the texts. If we look at the modern Bible in terms “percent of correct translation”, I believe this minor caveat to our understanding of biblical inerrancy would get us much, much closer to reality than saying that the Bible is even really reliable.

based on the historical and sriptural evidence.

I haven’t heard of any historical evidence that can stand up to any significant level of scrutiny. Would you like to provide some? (Here, I’m referring to historical evidence in the past 2,000 years or so - I’m not familiar enough with history more ancient than that to make a statement on it currently.)

I looked (yet again) at those verses…I didn’t see any mention of the power of infallibility nor any ability to pass on (or inherit) that unmentioned power. I doubt that you think that this is one of those cases where the text has been altered to delete reference to such a power. As such, WRT your claim of infallibilty for the CC, IMHO it comes down to being simply a position of out and out faith on your part…otherwise you are thrown to circular reasoning like this:

1. The CC assumes that the scriptures are historically accurate (you would get a lot of argument from non- Christians and liberal Christians as to the level of accuracy)
2. The CC interprets certain biblical passages to say that the Church (that Christ founded) possessed a never-ending gift of infallibility
3. The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded
4. Therefore, the CC is infallible; and
5. b/c the CC is infallible, its interpretations at #2 and #3 are absolutely correct

The problem here is that it seems you’re viewing the Bible as the source of these beliefs. These beliefs existed before even the original texts of the Bible were written, much less the whole Bible canonized, and certainly well before there were ever lots of Christians around who negated this claim.

Jesus said these things, the apostles believed them, and I cling to the apostolic faith. It’s not a circular argument, because God delivered (and continues to deliver) (name removed by moderator)ut from outside your proposed circle.

That would be one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it would be to realize that, if the written record has been changed (even minimally) b/c of the involvement of man in its preservation, then the oral record would have likely undergone considerably more change b/c of the involvement of man in its preservation. I would go so far as to say that one should expect that additions occurred.

Second, the Jews had scripture for a long long time w/o having an infallible interpreter… are Christians somehow less able to cope (w/o an infallible interpreter) than were the Israelites? Obviously, such is not required for God to lead his children.

Sure, it may not be required, but that doesn’t mean that God in his infinite wisdom didn’t instate Tradition or the Magisterium. I certainly think it makes a lot of logical sense, especially when you consider that the New Covenant was extended well beyond the bounds of Israel. To continue to have any level of unity that spans many cultures, there must be a central authority that can decide on matters decisively. I mean no offense, but the current state of Protestantism is ample evidence of this. I wish it were not so.

Finally, I note that the early Church was able to manage in the face of some nasty persecution w/o an infallible list of infallible books…obviously such is not required for God to lead his Church.

I agree with PRmerger - this is an argument for Tradition more than it is for any point you’re trying to make with it. Through Apostolic Tradition, we can understand the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

 

[malu2u]

I’m thoroughly enjoying the dialogue here, thanks to all who are participating. One comment: let’s not continue to make Iggy defend the Baptist faith since he has said multiple times that he is moving away from a Baptist understanding.

I have one question for you, Iggy, if you wouldn’t mind making a brief detour. What canon do you accept and why?

I second this motion.

By the way, Iggy, you are a brave soul to jump in here with this topic. I’m sure God will help it to enlighten all of us on here.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I second this motion.

By the way, Iggy, you are a brave soul to jump in here with this topic. I’m sure God will help it to enlighten all of us on here.

malu, ha! It certainly is a challenging environment. It’s blessedly less contentious than most other forums I’ve participated in, though not without the occasional frustration

 

[Radical]

No, I’d prefer “inerrant” with the caveat that inerrancy refers to the original texts, and that it’s possible that minor errors have entered through man’s involvement of transcribing and translating the texts. If we look at the modern Bible in terms “percent of correct translation”, I believe this minor caveat to our understanding of biblical inerrancy would get us much, much closer to reality than saying that the Bible is even really reliable.

I think that you are overly optimistic. E Tov has shown that the book Daniel and the books of Samuel “appeared in widely different forms before 70.” Which of those widely different forms is closest to the original “inerrant” work? …and how do you know that the correct line is the one that prevailed?

I haven’t heard of any historical evidence that can stand up to any significant level of scrutiny. Would you like to provide some? (Here, I’m referring to historical evidence in the past 2,000 years or so - I’m not familiar enough with history more ancient than that to make a statement on it currently.)

I would invite you to have a look at “Exploring the Origins of the Bible” (Evans and Tov) and the Canon Debate (MacDonald and Sanders) for a start.

The problem here is that it seems you’re viewing the Bible as the source of these beliefs. These **beliefs existed before even the original texts **of the Bible were written, much less the whole Bible canonized, and certainly well before there were ever lots of Christians around who negated this claim.

the problem here is that you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to show that Matt 16 & 18 were interpreted as you say before “the original texts existed”. How can you and other Catholics miss something that is so terribly obvious? Please show me the first Church father that expressly interprets Matt 16 & 18 as you do now. How may years passed between that ECF and the writing of Matthew?.. In light of this claim of yours, perhaps I shouldn’t have said:

The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded

and instead said:

The Catholics assert an unverifiable tradition to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded

It’s not a circular argument, because God delivered (and continues to deliver) (name removed by moderator)ut from outside your proposed circle.

as I said, that is your assumption on faith.

Sure, it may not be required, but that doesn’t mean that God in his infinite wisdom didn’t instate Tradition or the Magisterium. I certainly think it makes a lot of logical sense, especially when you consider that the New Covenant was extended well beyond the bounds of Israel. To continue to have any level of unity that spans many cultures, there must be a central authority that can decide on matters decisively.

There would be some merit to this argument if the unity that is desired is the same one as can be delivered by a central authority (a political unity for a lack of a better term) vs. the unity that can be delivered through the Holy Spirit

I agree with PRmerger - this is an argument for Tradition more than it is for any point you’re trying to make with it. Through Apostolic Tradition, we can understand the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Understood…it seems that the benefits of a central infallible authority has a certain appeal to a certain personality type…the certainty and unity that it provides seems comforting. I can’t get by (what appears to me to be) the obvious errors of that “infallible” authority. I don’t approach it from the “this makes logical sense to me as to what God would do” approach, but rather I look at it from the “what does the historical evidence establish that God did” approach. I realize that you would think that the historical evidence supports your view,…but that is a much different matter that the “God would have done it this way” assertion.

 

[ChrisB103]

I think that you are overly optimistic. E Tov has shown that the book Daniel and the books of Samuel “appeared in widely different forms before 70.” Which of those widely different forms is closest to the original “inerrant” work? …and how do you know that the correct line is the one that prevailed?

Perhaps I’m too optimistic, or perhaps my optimism stems from my belief that the Good Shepherd continues to tend well to his flocks through his Church.
To be honest, I’m no scholar in the issue of specific books and their canonicity. I know the big picture decently well, but at this point my understanding isn’t incredibly nuanced. Perhaps others can pitch in some good information on how (other than the Magisterium) we know that the books of Daniel and Samuel that we use are the best copies.

I would invite you to have a look at “Exploring the Origins of the Bible” (Evans and Tov) and the Canon Debate (MacDonald and Sanders) for a start.

I’m afraid that I shouldn’t devote the time to reading either of those very lengthy books at my point in life. I’m 24 and I’m in dental school, and so I’m trying to focus my efforts on reading from Catholic sources, and then hopefully I’ll be able to spend some time branching out to non-Catholic sources in a couple years or so. Would you mind sharing a couple relevant points from these collections of articles?

the problem here is that you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to show that Matt 16 & 18 were interpreted as you say before “the original texts existed”. How can you and other Catholics miss something that is so terribly obvious? Please show me the first Church father that expressly interprets Matt 16 & 18 as you do now. How may years passed between that ECF and the writing of Matthew?.. In light of this claim of yours, perhaps I shouldn’t have said:

The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded

and instead said:

The Catholics assert an unverifiable tradition to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded

Perhaps you’d like perfectly clear quotes starting from year 34 AD, but of course those don’t exist. However, I think that the seeds of the doctrine were always present in the deference paid to the Bishop of Rome by churches outside of Rome. One example is when a letter was sent to Pope Clement towards the end of the first century AD even though the apostle John would have been geographically closer. Towards the end of the second century, the evidence clears up some more. Consider this quote by Irenaeus:
“the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

For more patristic quotes related to this issue, try these two articles:
The Authority of the Pope: Part I
The Authority of the Pope: Part II

There would be some merit to this argument if the unity that is desired is the same one as can be delivered by a central authority (a political unity for a lack of a better term) vs. the unity that can be delivered through the Holy Spirit

Sorry, I’m not clear on what you’re saying here. Would you mind rephrasing it? Perhaps that means I should go to sleep…

I think both assertions hold (“God would have done it this way” and historical evidence). It’s certainly a more logical system than having your average believer depend on his ability to understand the Bible, even if he believes its ok to look to tradition for some help. Also, any historical circumstance that you would possibly bring up to show that any ex cathedra statement has contradicted a previous one would invariably fall short. Have you read Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by chance? It provides quite a good summary of this topic.

 

[onemangang]

I think that you are overly optimistic. E Tov has shown that the book Daniel and the books of Samuel “appeared in widely different forms before 70.” Which of those widely different forms is closest to the original “inerrant” work? …and how do you know that the correct line is the one that prevailed?

This argument really benefits us Catholics. The answer to your question is the Church.

I would invite you to have a look at “Exploring the Origins of the Bible” (Evans and Tov) and the Canon Debate (MacDonald and Sanders) for a start.

Again, is the Protestant canon closed, and by who’s authority is it closed? You said earlier in response to "Why do you consider the traditional Protestant list more reliable than the Catholic list?

The answer you gave was “Based on the historical and sriptural evidence”.

The most recent of finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to support the Catholic position, There were multiple Deuterocanonical books found in Hebrew/Aramaic.** Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew (Sirach, Judith, 1 Maccabees,) or Aramaic (Tobit). **

It seems like every time something of antiquity gets unearthed or discovered, it solidifies the Catholic Churches claims.

the problem here is that you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to show that Matt 16 & 18 were interpreted as you say before “the original texts existed”. How can you and other Catholics miss something that is so terribly obvious? Please show me the first Church father that expressly interprets Matt 16 & 18 as you do now.

You set up a criteria that is untenable. First off, if it was always a belief of the Church beginning with the apostles, there would be no need to write about it. It is only when questions arise from without or within the Church, does it constitute a teaching or instructing on the matters at hand.

If you would accept that a teaching is not limited to writing but to action then maybe we could discuss the matter at hand.

There is great antiquity of writings on Apostolic succession, but the actions of the ECF like Clement of Rome, show the already known teaching by practice.

Clement of Rome intervened in Corinth around 80 A.D which would have been under the bishop of Antioch. That would have been under the Apostle John, or some other bishop that John had conferred in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, though not written about explicitly, but expressed by action. As the saying goes Actions speak louder than words!

The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded

Lets back this up a bit History shows that Christ founded the Catholic Church, Tradition and scripture bear His witness.

Understood. .it seems that the benefits of a central infallible authority has a certain appeal to a certain personality type…the certainty and unity that it provides seems comforting. I can’t get by (what appears to me to be) the obvious errors of that “infallible” authority.

Wow, that sounded incredibly familiar, much like the Atheistic arguments of Richard Dawkins about how people of certain personality types only believe in God to be comforted and have a sense of community.

The same reply Dawkins would get, is that he rejects God, because he wants to be held accountable to nobody but himself.

I could say there are many protestant personality types out there that reject the authority of the Church and say scripture is their authority, only because they are the interpreters of Scripture. Therefore they subject scripture to their own authority. They often claim “We have Jesus,” but they never finish the sentence. The sentence should say “We have Jesus, right where we want Him, on our terms” As a matter of fact that would be something that has been said, somewhat anyways.

St.Augustine
"Your design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority and to make every man’s mind the authority of what he is to approve or disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture, but to make Scripture subject to you. If you discard authority, to what, I beseech you, will you take yourself?" (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 32:19 [A.D. 400]

I don’t approach it from the “this makes logical sense to me as to what God would do” approach, but rather I look at it from the “what does the historical evidence establish that God did” approach. I realize that you would think that the historical evidence supports your view,…but that is a much different matter that the “God would have done it this way” assertion.

You say that you look at through the eyes of History and then say " I realize that you would think that the historical evidence supports your view!" Do things in History need to be interpreted? It sounds like you are saying that history is subject to the personal interpretation of the viewer? Evidence demands a verdict. If the Catholic Church would be put on trial (which it is, by every Tom, Dick and Harry, when He says I know better than those Papist do) I think the evidence is overwhelming to gain a conviction of the Catholic Church being the Church that Christ founded. Can you say the same about Protestantism?

 

[PRmerger]

This argument really benefits us Catholics. The answer to your question is the Church.

'zactly.

Again, is the Protestant canon closed, and by who’s authority is it closed?

This is a trenchant point and I am quite interested in a Protestant’s answer to this.

To be sure, the forthcoming answer will be: “By God’s authority!”

to which we will respond,

“And how is that authority manifested in proclaiming that the Protestant canon is closed?”

Wow, that sounded incredibly familiar, much like the Atheistic arguments of Richard Dawkins about how people of certain personality types only believe in God to be comforted and have a sense of community.

The same reply Dawkins would get, is that he rejects God, because he wants to be held accountable to nobody but himself.

Very insightful parallel!

They often claim “We have Jesus,” but they never finish the sentence.

Right.

And they need to ask themselves, if this is their paradigm, “How is it that you know anything about Jesus?”

The answer: through the authority of the Catholic Church. For you would not know whether Jesus really healed a cripple, as is proclaimed in the Gospel of Mark, but didn’t really cause clay animals to come to life, as in the Gospel of Thomas, except for the discernment and authority of the CC.

An individual Christian has no authority to look at the Gospel of Thomas and declare it to not be inspired and to look at the Gospel of Mark and declare it to be so.

It is ONLY through the authority of the CC that one can declare, with the assurance given of knowing that the Church is gifted with the charism of infallibility, that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos but the Gospel of Thomas isn’t.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

RADICAL:
the problem here is that you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to show that Matt 16 & 18 were interpreted as you say before “the original texts existed”. How can you and other Catholics miss something that is so terribly obvious? Please show me the first Church father that expressly interprets Matt 16 & 18 as you do now.

Much like the problem that you have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER…NONE to show ANY POST-APOSTOLIC church father teaching the Real Presence of the Eucharist is a **heresy **or **great usurpation **of Christ teaching. How can ANY Protestant as yourself so BLINDLY and FLAT OUT DENY the obvious due to PRIDE?

So again Radical…show me ONE primary-empirical source clearly stating a SYMBOLIC Eucharist is the orthodox teaching of Christ?

Good luck…you will need it!