Church Authority, a problem for Catholics?

[James_2_24]

There is one accusation that Protestants make that I’m not sure how to answer. When I tell them that the Bible in and of itself is NOT infallible and that we must have an infallible INTERPRETOR.

I heard the argument: Even if you had an infallible intrepretor of scripture… you would have the same problem. For you would have to interpret the infallible interpretors interpretation. And in doing that, many of you will come to different conclusions… as already shown by the divisions within Catholicism.

Basically the questioner seems to say we are arguing in a circle by trying to put forth the teaching of a infallible Church.

“You still have to interpret what the Church says to you… and in doing so, many of you can interpret the Church differently”

 

[Charles]

The advantage of the Church’s teachings is that we have a living body to address issues that may have not needed to be made clear in the past. Dogma’s such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, Transubstantiation, and the Trinity were not explicitly defined in scripture (actually I might argue they were, but apparently not to the satisfaction of many others) and when the issues needed clarifying the Church was there to clarify.

I also think the Church’s pronouncements are pretty hard to mis-interpret. Which source is open to less private interpretation, the Bible’s illustrations of the three dogmas in paragraph 1 or the Church’s interpretation of the them?

 

[kwitz]

One thing my participation on this forum has shown me is the absolute need for an authoritative interpreter. I have read many posts and gone “huh?” because I just didn’t get what was being said. But… here we can go back and ask the writer to explain, expand etc. We don’t have that privledge with the Bible.

Words by themselves have additional meanings. Unless you hear my voice, how do you know whether I’m speaking in anger, sarcasm, sincerity, confusion etc. I have read many responses telling someone that they were being uncharitable, rude etc and to some extent that’s hard to know for sure without hearing a tone of voice. I think that’s why smilies were invented - to lend some sense of tone.

Without the interpretation of Authority, we can’t know for sure what the words meant. Actually, Authority is more than an interpretation isn’t it? We are to believe it is the Holy Spirit speaking directly through the Church.

 

[Genuflecter]

With all due respect to your Protestant friend or acquaintance, I must say this argument about needing an interpreter to interpret the interpreter seems to be nonsensical. It’s tantamount to saying you cannot call something beautiful unless someone else first affirms that it is indeed beauty, presupposing that a third can affirmed that the second knows beauty, which can only be affirmed by a forth and so on. If this were true, nothing is beautiful and scripture cannot be interpreted.

Scripture itself cannot stand up and cry out “no, no, no that’s not what I meant. What I’m trying to say is…”. In other words, scripture cannot interpret scripture any more that milk can describe the flavor of milk. Now if our Lord did not establish a means for interpreting truth, then one can argue that truth cannot be known with certainty. And if it cannot be known with certainty, do we know for certain that it can be known at all? Taking it a step further, can we know for certain that there even is such a thing as truth? The Lord did provide a means for interpreting truth. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Mt. 16:18. “…when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” - Jn. 16:13

What we really have here is a disagreement with the interpreter, but that doesn’t imply that the interpreter needs interpreting. He says what he says and you can either agree with it, reject it, or not understand it. If you don’t understand it ask him. If that’s not possible ask someone that does know what he said. This is why we have a very cohesive Catholic Church. Dogmatically speaking, there are no divisions within Catholic teaching. If you still don’t understand, there’s something called faith. Jesus says, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Jn. 20:29. Can we not trust the Lord and His Church simply because we cannot see with our mind’s eye? Must we therefore assume that God left us in the dark without eyes to see? No, we can trust His promise and know that we can see Him in and through the life of His Church. We are Christians, not Gnostics. Our salvation is not dependant upon understanding truth, but rather upon our humility to freely embrace it.

J

 

[Magnanimity]

Talk about turning the table round! No church authority is a problem for non-Catholics, yet these individuals try to say that the presence of authority is a problem for those who have it. Amazing, the intellectual juggling that goes on for those not on the side of truth.

One word of clarification though, the Bible actually is infallible in itself. It’s condition of infallibility is predicated upon its being inspired by the Holy Spirit. The argument for an infallible interpreter of the text does not spring from the Bible not being infallible on its own.

One irony though in a Protestant’s usage of this argument is that if you question them on the understandings of the first four councils or of, say, Trent, they will immediately expound to you how Trent anathematized so and so and Arianism was condemned in such and such a council…in other words, they certainly don’t act like they need an infallible interpreter of the writings of the councils. They can, and do, just read them.

Another thing: the need for interpretation is an antecedent need, as John Henry Cardinal Newman argued. That is, given the occasional, unsystematic, historically-bound, unthorough nature of the biblical writings, one would expect in advance that there would be a body to interpret them (and to further apply those interpretations to our lives today). In other words, the nature of the individual biblical writings themselves almost seems to presuppose that there would be an interpreter.

 

[Vincent]

One weakness I see in Catholic apologetics, sometimes, is the tendency to place the accent on infallibility rather than on authority.

To quote I. Shawn McElhinney:

“The only way you can cogently and consistently argue your case for the Catholic Church and avoid the fallible-infallible regression is to focus on authority and not infallibility. Infallibility depends on authority but authority does not depend on infallibility. Start your arguments with the fact that Our Lord founded a Church to teach in His name and with His authority and go from there. Otherwise you will be snared in the inevitable infinite regress and that is quicksand that is best avoided.”

 

[II_Paradox_II]

hey magnaminity, havne’t talked to you in a while… How is life treating you?

Anyways, didn’t we argue over this back on carm last year? If I remember correctly, you held to a rather peculiar position that I never had a chance to really think through…

ken

 

[JimG]

The bible is not infallible. Infallible means incapable of teaching error. The bible doesn’t teach anything; it just sits there. We read it and we come to conclusions about what it says. But we can say that the bible is inerrant.

Karl Keating said it much better in a prior post here.

JimG

 

[pnewton]

James_2:24:

I heard the argument: Even if you had an infallible intrepretor of scripture… you would have the same problem. For you would have to interpret the infallible interpretors interpretation. And in doing that, many of you will come to different conclusions… as already shown by the divisions within Catholicism.

IJesus passed His authority unto Peter and the infallability of the Church is derived from its authority. This is why infallability should not be divorced from authority and obedience should precede spiritual pride. Divisions inevitably arise when we refuse to humbly obey church teaching.

We disagree with moral teaching on homosexuality, reproduction, etc. so we complain the church is too repressive. We disagree with the order of Mass or the Charismatic Renewal so we argue that the church being too progressive. We do not like the Tridentine Mass or litrugical reform so we try to impose our puppets, Pooh and pop music on the liturgy.

We are the bride of Christ and it is incumbent on us to make ourself as beautiful as possible for the wedding day. Let us follow in humility our priest, bishops and Holy Father. If you do not agree with your priest, pray for him. Let God decide which one of you he wishes to change.

 

[Magnanimity]

Don’t mean to bring this up if the thread has already died a natural death, but the comments are worthy of reply. Before I do though, just out of curiosity, though the Bible cannot be infallible, can Keating’s post be? Was he teaching us something in the post? Seems a bit self-defeating at first blush, but oh well.

1. Since words, strictly speaking, do not have any meaning at all outside of contexts which determine their meanings, I think it’s a bit unfruitful for us to just try to define away any possible usage of the word “infallible” as an attribute of Sacred Scripture. I could just reply with a definition that would make it possible for infallibility to legitimately be a property of Scripture and voila, all the sudden Keating is wrong and it’s once again a licit practice to describe the Bible as infallible.
2. As most non-Catholic Christians use the word infallibility it certainly is meaningful when applied to the Bible. The Bible contains meaning in itself. Hence, it would contain the propositions that were originally in the minds of the authors. Insofar as an author is infallible, it would follow that his text is as the text contains the meaning he was trying to convey. I don’t have the mind of the author. I only have his text. Hence, I most certainly am taught by the text he leaves behind. I see no way of defeating this line of reasoning except by denying that an author’s meaning is in the text itself, which seems like quite a difficult task indeed.

JimG:

The bible is not infallible. Infallible means incapable of teaching error. The bible doesn’t teach anything; it just sits there. We read it and we come to conclusions about what it says. But we can say that the bible is inerrant.

Karl Keating said it much better in a prior post here.

JimG

 

[Magnanimity]

Hey, hey! I’ll send a message along in case you don’t check this thread. I’m well, and I hope you and yours are too. My family of 5 (yikes!) is an officially Catholic family now. My wife and I have been confirmed and our children all recently baptized. And we’re basically loving it! I remember being (in my heart and mind) out of Protestantism anyway when we would exchange together, so it’s probably no shocker to you.

A peculiar position, eh? Well, it was a time of transition for me. I don’t doubt that I probably did (& still) have a number of wild beliefs. Maybe the Church will eventually straighten me out.
II Paradox II:

hey magnaminity, havne’t talked to you in a while… How is life treating you?

Anyways, didn’t we argue over this back on carm last year? If I remember correctly, you held to a rather peculiar position that I never had a chance to really think through…

ken

 

[jimmy]

There is no problem with the interpretations of the people who have interpreted the bible in the church. The problem is with the individuals who think that they can believe what ever they want and discard everything else.

 

[Columba]

James_2:24:

“You still have to interpret what the Church says to you… and in doing so, many of you can interpret the Church differently”

I have to admit I haven’t heard this one, James, but maybe it’s because I don’t use that arguement a whole lot (not to fault you, I think it’s a fine point to make)

We, as Catholics, are not called to interpret the Bible in order to define guiding principles on Faith and Morals, that is the job of the Magesterium (We are called to read and understand it to help us in our journey, and to better understand Christ).

The beauty of being a Catholic is that I no longer have to worry about having it all “figured out” for myself (It’s funny, though, that I have learned more and understood more theologically than ever since becoming Catholic…still have the rest of eternity to keep learning…)

Here is the key word to this entire issue. You can move beyond any arguement about infallibility, interpretation, blah blah blah…

The word is:

OBEDIENCE.

We are not called as the laity to “interpret the interpreter”, we are called to obey Him.

This is a foreign concept to a Protestant (Trust me, I was one) because the idea of obeying an earthly leader is perposterous. But if we see that the institution of the Church by Christ carries the promise of the Holy Spirit not allowing the magesterium to be led astray (in regards to Faith and Moral Life), than this becomes an easier pill to swallow.

Protestants observe Catholics that are all over the map (particularily in North America) because the Bishops Priests and Laity have forgotten the concept of Obedience, and that ultimately a body of Christ needs to have a Head on that Body…Jesus Christ. If you think you can make it on your own as a left foot and two arms, you got another thing coming.

Gee, all we have to do is look at the…what…27,000 different Protestant Denominations? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Just some thoughts.

 

[theMutant]

James_2:24:

I heard the argument: Even if you had an infallible intrepretor of scripture… you would have the same problem. For you would have to interpret the infallible interpretors interpretation. And in doing that, many of you will come to different conclusions… as already shown by the divisions within Catholicism.

Basically the questioner seems to say we are arguing in a circle by trying to put forth the teaching of a infallible Church.

Columba is absolutely right First of all, the questioner is not making the distinction regarding the reasons for the divisions within Catholicism; refusal to submit to the authority of the Church. Division only exists where Catholics refuse to accept the Church’s living authoritative magisterium. The divisions within Protestantism are quite different. Having no authoritative magisterium (infallible or not) there is no one source to which they can turn for a proper interpretation and understanding of their faith. Catholics have this although not all turn to that authority.

Actually, your questioner is simply trying to avoid the broken line of reasoning in regard to his assurance that he can rely on the Bible alone. (Actually, he is probably not even aware that the line is broken.) I have not experienced this partucular example before, but I would try to show that before we can discuss the question of authoritative interpretation, we must address the question of the authority to determine Scripture itself.

1: In light of fact that the Bible never says that the authority of Scripture is exclusive, why do Protestants believe it. Sure, they can show you LOTS of verses that show Scripture is authoritative and you should shout a hearty AMEN to all of them; just before you point out that the verse in question does not say Scripture’s authority is exclusive.

2: In light of the fact that the Bible never once lists the canon of Scripture, how do Protestants know what books belong in the Bible. This is one of the most fun questions to ask because the responses fall into two categories. (a) Changing the subject – just change it right back and (b) things like “The Old Testament consists of the writings accepted by the Jews and the New Testament consists of the writings accepted by the Early Church.” This latter response places all of the authority for determining what writings are Scripture in Churches; which Protestants do not accept as an infallible authority. If fallible Churches made the decision of what writings are scripture, then why must we accept their fallible decision on the matter? Why must I believe that the Gospel of Matthew is Scripture (or even that it was written by Matthew) if the only reason you can give me for doing so is that a fallible institution says it is.

I highly recommend the tape set “The Bible Alone?” by Scott Hahn and available from St. Joseph Communications (saintjoe.com) for more information.

 

[GoodME]

Sorry if this is a repeat; I did not read the entire thread.

Isn’t accepting Scripture accepting the Authority of the Church? After all, who decided what was included in Scripture, and what was not?

The instruction for what is contained in Scripture, is not contained in Scripture itself. It was decided by the Faithful and canonized by the Authority of the Church, said authority being well-documented in Scriptures.

I think the the thread title might more appropriately be “Church Authority, a problem for Protestants?”

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

Not to most.

Obedience to lawful authority is a freeing experience.

Having a magisterium as our authority as instituted by Christ and protected from error by the Holy Spirit, frees us from wondering what is right and wrong, how should some things should be interpreted and understood and provides us guidance on how to live.

Rather than the problem for good Catholics, church authority is a great blessing.

 

[Richard_Lamb]

James_2:24:

There is one accusation that Protestants make that I’m not sure how to answer. When I tell them that the Bible in and of itself is NOT infallible and that we must have an infallible INTERPRETOR.

I heard the argument: Even if you had an infallible intrepretor of scripture… you would have the same problem. For you would have to interpret the infallible interpretors interpretation. And in doing that, many of you will come to different conclusions… as already shown by the divisions within Catholicism.

Basically the questioner seems to say we are arguing in a circle by trying to put forth the teaching of a infallible Church.

“You still have to interpret what the Church says to you… and in doing so, many of you can interpret the Church differently”

Yes but the division is between those that acccept the Magisterium and those that dicent from it…In a way protestants are more honest they leave the church…

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Magnanimity:

Hey, hey! I’ll send a message along in case you don’t check this thread. I’m well, and I hope you and yours are too. My family of 5 (yikes!) is an officially Catholic family now. My wife and I have been confirmed and our children all recently baptized. And we’re basically loving it! I remember being (in my heart and mind) out of Protestantism anyway when we would exchange together, so it’s probably no shocker to you.

You were pretty much fully Catholic at the time, so no big shocker there. Anyways, my wife and I are trying to conceive a child but have thus far been unsuccessful. It’s probably good though in that our current home is a rather small aprtment which wouldn’t work well for more than the 1 kid we have.

A peculiar position, eh? Well, it was a time of transition for me. I don’t doubt that I probably did (& still) have a number of wild beliefs. Maybe the Church will eventually straighten me out.

That’s ok. I always roll my eyes whenever I read my old posts because the thoughts I expressed seem so dated. I try to keep away from any truly odd positions but I always seem to manage a few. Anyways, have a good day…

ken

 

[Magnanimity]

II Paradox II:

You were pretty much fully Catholic at the time, so no big shocker there. Anyways, my wife and I are trying to conceive a child but have thus far been unsuccessful. It’s probably good though in that our current home is a rather small aprtment which wouldn’t work well for more than the 1 kid we have.

Wow, I totally know the feeling of being cramped with children. My wife and I do not have a very good track-record as far as having adequate size homes for our children. Our first was born when we were living in a loft apartment above a garage! Our second came a bit later when we had move into a 900ftsqd 2 bedroom apartment. Only finally are we now in a good size home and not a minute too soon either. I wish you well on the fruitfulness of your conjugal love. I’m sure you will enjoy every new addition to the family.
II Paradox II:

That’s ok. I always roll my eyes whenever I read my old posts because the thoughts I expressed seem so dated. I try to keep away from any truly odd positions but I always seem to manage a few. Anyways, have a good day…

ken

No doubt. I’m the same way when it comes to reading my old posts. I guess those who read and contemplate and interact a good bit on these sorts of issues (like presumably you and I do) and who are also more youthful than not (again, hopefully a safe presumption) probably frequently change our positions, or at least change our ways of approaching and articulating our same positions.

How is everything at CARM.org? I haven’t been back since I had to drop off from posting in January because of work.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Magnanimity:

Wow, I totally know the feeling of being cramped with children. My wife and I do not have a very good track-record as far as having adequate size homes for our children. Our first was born when we were living in a loft apartment above a garage! Our second came a bit later when we had move into a 900ftsqd 2 bedroom apartment. Only finally are we now in a good size home and not a minute too soon either. I wish you well on the fruitfulness of your conjugal love. I’m sure you will enjoy every new addition to the family…

Right now I live in an approximately 600 sq. ft. apartment. It gets pretty crazy with one kid. I’d imagine 2 in a place this small would be interesting. =)

No doubt. I’m the same way when it comes to reading my old posts. I guess those who read and contemplate and interact a good bit on these sorts of issues (like presumably you and I do) and who are also more youthful than not (again, hopefully a safe presumption) probably frequently change our positions, or at least change our ways of approaching and articulating our same positions.

Hmm… I’m kind of youthful (29). But yes, I do find myself modifying positions quite a bit as I go…

How is everything at CARM.org? I haven’t been back since I had to drop off from posting in January because of work

I don’t post there a whole lot anymore (I kind of go in waves…). Work is rather busy these days so I can’t get a lot of time to post to the boards. You will see me from time to time though.

ken