That is not a rabbit hole. It is part of the narrow gate.
But beyond the scope of the topic. And it leads to ever more topics. I didn’t want to comment on it here. I’m well aware of prominent Catholic cardinals who rejected the apocrypha right up to and including at Trent. I can p(name removed by moderator)oint all the logical fallacies in the line of argument. We clearly don’t have to thank Rome for our OT canon, so it’s strange to think we’re indebted to Rome for the NT canon. And no, Hippo and Carthage were not binding on the whole church, and the question of the twofold canon was open until Trent. Which came
after Luther’s Bible. But that’s a big topic and it doesn’t really belong on this thread.
But conceptually, your position is flawed. You want me to accept papal authority because I accept Scripture… but does the Church establish Scripture, or does the Scripture establish the Church? Because the presupposition behind your comment and PRmerger’s, is the first one - that the Church decides what is Scripture. A Catholic will even deny the perspicuity of Scripture in one breath, and the next, try to justify the very idea of the popes
from Scripture. Being consistent, no Catholic should do that. If one’s authority is Rome, then Scripture is rendered useless because any interpretation of any passage of Scripture must await adjudication for one to *know *what Scripture is saying. When you argue from Scripture you deny the need for an infallible magisterium to interpret it for you. Not a good option for a Catholic. The alternative is to point to Rome apart from Scripture, and to prove the papacy by an appeal to the papacy - but then you show yourself to be a blind follower of something in the face of Scripture. It’s an irreconcilable tension.
And that blind faith dovetails with the previous claim on this thread that the Catholic church rejects fideism. I accept that God’s existence can be demonstrated by reason, and I believe that Jesus Christ really died and really resurrected. That’s a starting point for personal trust in Christ. But the Marian dogmas, for example, cannot be proved from reason. In fact, the fall-back defence is invariably “well, you
don’t know she
wasn’t assumed”. It shifts the burden of proof and asks those who object to it - me for example - to prove a negative. In informal logic, it’s the argument from ignorance. So to call a spade a spade, many distinctive doctrines of Catholicism are certainly a form of fideism. They cannot be proved, and will only be accepted by someone who already implicitly believes Rome. (The profession of faith: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”) That’s fine. Wear it on your sleeve. Embrace it. Just don’t say it’s not blind faith.
But of course:
You can ask one of the priests on this forum if you are interested in the truth.
Is the infallible guide away?
The sales pitch is that Catholicism offers certainty. Well, does it? How are you better off than a Protestant asking his minister? I’m not setting out to offend for it’s own sake. It’s just that Rome doesn’t have what it claims, and truth matters. Someone must ask these questions. I know you don’t, in practice, have an infallible guide. Or a perspicuous guide.
God bless
Stephen
