Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[PC_Master]

The Arian heresy was quite visible (preached actively by Arius); yet some chose it anyway, for many of the reasons that Luther chose his particular heresies.

But was it visible to be as a heresy to those who followed? My point is that people fall into heresy, but they almost never believe that it actually is a heresy.

If you are in heresy (hypothetically), you surely don’t believe yourself to be so. By the same measure, if Protestants are heretical, they surely don’t believe themselves to be so.

If I weren’t mindless, I might comment on your arrogance.

My apologies, rad314 (and others). I was trying to be blunt about the conclusion one might reach. It wasn’t my intent to imply that all Roman Catholics are indeed mindless automatons, though I have no doubt that some are (just as is the case in almost any other religious grouping).

The line is: the authority of the Church is rejected since it needs - so it is said - too strong a sacrifice of the intellect. What if , nevertheless, it is the alternative ways that do appear to assume too much ? My proposal amounts then to “let’s examine any alternative way. Can we see anything more consistent, more solid on both logic and historic ground, explaining better the origin of our faith, the origin of our knowledge about Christ ?” Let’s make explicit what we have to assume in order to reject the authority of the Catholic Church.

Only one real thing has to be accepted/rejected – that the working of the Holy Spirit comes to the individual believer, as opposed to the leadership of the RCC. With this, you can still maintain that God chooses to work through various individuals throughout history (ECFs, scripture authors, etc… The main difference it makes is that faith in God now becomes a personal journey, instead of an institutionalized system. Personally, I have no problem with this.

The claims of direct divine instructions do not bypass our questions. Not only because this can simply lead to exercises of unverifiable subjectivism ( which appears so far from the spirit of communion and unity), but because you need - in order to simply acknowledge the supposed instructions by the Holy Spirit as such - a knowledge about the christian message coming to you through Scripture or other sources which, IMHO, leads us back to the Catholic Church.

Any claims of divine revelation could be accused of being subjectivist, or even self-deceptive. While this does apply to beliefs I believe to have been confirmed by the holy spirit, it also can apply to beliefs that the RCC holds, which it believes to be given by the holy spirit. Thus, I see this as a flaw with both systems, and not a boon to either.

So you’re afraid about becoming not only a slave, but even a “mindless automaton”. Tell me, then: how can a mindless automaton interpret the Magisterium ? How can automatons explore theological opinions ? Does trusting anybody mean becoming authomatons ? Your fear, IMHO, would not survive a scrupolous examination of catholic life.

Please see my apology above. My explanation of the concept I was driving at was…less than proficient.

And all of them will tell me something different about Christianity. Why should I prefer the expositions by one protestant brother and reject those of the other ones ?

That’s the question I’m left with – why should I accept Roman Catholic explanations rather than non-Roman Catholic ones? Both claim historical support (and depending on what you’re willing to believe and how you think, both can make a decent support of it). Both seem, to differing degrees, to be logical and rational. So, what’s left as a deciding factor? I’m back to having to have faith in the RCC to prove that the RCC is right, and that just won’t do (because it’s a circular argument).

And how can I know whether their differences are essential, if there is no agreement on what is essential ? Are we left here without a kompass ? The opposite way is getting a picture of Christianity ( eg through the path proposed above) that leads you to trust the Catholic Church.

You’re back to this – it makes more sense to you to have a visible earthly leader, because it prevents uncertainty and conflict (okay, so it really doesn’t, but that’s the theory at least), and thus you choose to believe God would have done it this way (assuming that God’s mind works like yours), and therefore you choose to point out the flaws that this supposedly solves.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

But since I’ve seen so many differing, and sometimes contradictory, opinions on Mary, the Rosary, the Assumption, Purgatory, Limbo, the Papacy, infallibility, and many other issues, all given by supposedly devout Roman Catholics, there really is uncertainty. What Roman Catholicism is to each of you seems to be tainted as much by personal views as anything.

And finally, again – how do you know God thinks like you do? How do you know your belief of the need for a visible earthly leadership is right? What outside source do you have to validate it?

your telling me if you went back 2,000 years you yourself would tell the apostles who taught in unity that you could be wrong in what you teach. Yeah what your saying sounds good but YOU could be wrong.

It is my belief that the apostles were fallible men (scripture demonstrates this). I believe they were exceptionally open to the leading of the holy spirit, which led them to compile the scriptural works they did, and teach the things they did. I believe God uses (to this day) open and willing individuals to further promote his truths in the world, so that they will not be lost; so that the gates of hell truly will not overcome his church (his gathering of believers). I also believe that it is possible, or perhaps even likely, that the apostles taught error here and there, but their openness to the holy spirit allowed for them to recognize and not promulgate these errors.

Likewise, early church leaders were led to select volumes for the canon of scripture, and weeded out many heretical works. I believe these men too were open to the holy spirit’s guidance, at least in most cases. God has incredible, and sometimes extraordinary, ways of protecting the truth.

And you’re right – I’m fallible, and thus, on this issue (like any other), I could be wrong. But then, so is every other human being on the planet. All we can do is put our efforts into discovering and living the truth. God honors intent more than action.

They also would admit that they could be wrong is that biblical?

Scriptural authors wrote to support the truth, not to support their own teaching ability. This would, indirectly, show that they believed they could err. But then, I’d guess that we would all agree that the apostles could err.

Really. Couldn’t you possibly be wrong about that? Perhaps we really do agree but just misunderstand one another. Isn’t that possible? Here’s another one: isn’t it possible that everything we see and touch is really an illusion. Isn’t it possible?

Perhaps. But then, if it’s an illusion, what does it really change for me? If the things I believe to have been acts of God are actually someone sitting at a computer terminal in the “real world” controlling a simulation of which I am a part…what difference does it make for me? Can I ever prove it? Is there any evidence to truly support it? It’s a nice idea, but it’s totally hypothetical.

If we are going to use history and reason as a basis for understanding, then the question has to be what answer do they yield. Not whether there is some “possibility,” no matter how small, that you or I could be wrong.

But at least we do agree that one of us is right and one of us is wrong on the issue. And the only way to know which one of our positions corresponds to the truth is to use our logical faculties and to look at the historical record to decide.

Indeed – But I’m guessing that you and I have both looked at historical information already and have come to differing opinions on it. I see someone speak of confessing sins, and I’ll see it to mean confessing to a Christian brother. You’ll read the same passage and assume it means confession to a priest as it’s practiced in Roman Catholicism. I read “body and blood of the Lord”, and assume it’s using the same symbolic language used in scripture. You, on the other hand, assume it to speak of transubstantiation.

We each color history by our own beliefs. Most are not willing to even accept that they do this, and yet it’s all too obvious. What I’m looking for, and have been looking for, is evidence that truly shows that the early church held the same beliefs the modern RCC does, and that it practiced the same things, etc. I’ve yet, no matter how open I try to be, to see anything conclusive on this point.

The question isn’t whether you could possibly be wrong. The question is what do reason and history tell us. This is the way to avoid the circular argument that’s been suggested.

Obviously, either your interpretation of some historical things is wrong, or mine is…or perhaps both are. If it requires interpretation in the slightest, then we, as human beings, can mess it up.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

No, that it doesn’t mesh with the interpretations of the RCC is incidental. It’s that it doesn’t mesh with reason and history.

And what objective criteria do you use to determine what’s a valid interpretation of history? You own personal (fallible) view? Or perhaps my own personal (fallible) view is better? What about another person’s view?

My point is we’re all capable of deceiving ourselves into believing that history, reason, logic, and fact support our own views. I think this is a skill we practice all the time. We assume what is to be proved without proof.

I’ve been right there in the debates where you’ve set out your position. The ECF’s on the papacy and on the authority of Scripture. You defined criteria for the ECF’s on the papacy (it in fact changed several times throughout the debate) then you couldn’t successfully apply the same criteria to the authority of Scripture. I’ve considered it in debate with you multiple times.

The reason you can’t apply the same criteria to scripture is that it’s no more an absolute source than the papacy is. You keep assuming me to be a sola scripturist.

It seems that you are the one who is insisting that our interpretations are all ultimately colored to the point that we can’t be honest with ourselves, even when the evidence doesn’t support our position. Is that how you view yourself?

Sometimes. That’s why I continually pray that I’ll be open to the truth, even if I don’t currently see that truth. I don’t just think I might be fallible – I know I’m fallible. If there is a God, as I believe there is, and if he is loving, as I believe he is, and if his desire is to guide those who seek him into all truth, as I believe the case to be, then I have to trust that God will do what he said he’d do.

Sometimes I’m fairly impatient with his timetable, however.

No, it does not require that I exclude other possible arguments and interpretations. Even if I were to exclude twenty other possible interpretations, it still wouldn’t demonstrate that my view is correct. All I have to do is show that reason and history support my view. If someone comes forth with a view that they claim is better supported by the historical record, then we compare the two and see which is likely and which is unlikely. I’ve been through this procedure dozens of times, including with you.

Yes, but what you’re actually showing is that you have taken history (which we all know is incomplete and is missing lots of bits and pieces that we wish it had retained) and created an outline which fits what history we have, showing it to support your conclusions. But scientists, theologians, historians, et al are constantly taking the same data and coming to differing conclusions.

Inkaneer> While I appreciate the length and thoughtfulness of your response, the problem is that it is interjected with too much personal opinion to be considered anything but highly subjective. I can (and have) constructed equally subjective views which explain my conclusions as valid. So how do we know which is right?

By the way, Peter never bound anything across the whole earth, as you seem to imply. Also, you’re interpretation of what it means for the “gates of hell” to prevail against the church is biased to Roman Catholic thinking (you provided no support for this point).

Oh, and it should be mentioned that James, not Peter, presided at Jerusalem, and also that there were many others there involved in making the decision, who reached that decision by consensus, in agreement with the very words of James.

 

[Teflon93]

But was it visible to be as a heresy to those who followed? My point is that people fall into heresy, but they almost never believe that it actually is a heresy.

Heretics believe their own heresies to be orthodox, yes; but your “visible” point, whatever it may have been, is now utterly lost. The Arians were visible because they had force of arms to back them up, much as the Reformers did when they yoked their cause to various princes. Luther, for example, favored polygamy when a prince who favored him indicated he wanted to take another wife.

If you are in heresy (hypothetically), you surely don’t believe yourself to be so. By the same measure, if Protestants are heretical, they surely don’t believe themselves to be so.

But they do. Why else break off and form yet another community? Protestants see themselves surrounded by heretics. It gets the bulk of sermon time. No drinking, no dancing, no dating, church on Wednesdays, speaking in tongues, etc. Every Protestant denomination establishes its own definition of heresy, and the Catholic converts here can tell you how ruthless they are in suppressing heretics. Ask a fundamentalist whose had a family tragedy—I know several former fundamentalists who were driven out of their church because they were told the tragedy was because they lacked faith. Southern Baptists seem to be particularly prone to doing such things.

Only one real thing has to be accepted/rejected – that the working of the Holy Spirit comes to the individual believer, as opposed to the leadership of the RCC.

All very Oprah, but the nugget seems to be that the Holy Spirit speaks to everyone BUT the Pope.

How then to explain the atomization of Protestantism since 1520 and the fact that one billion Catholics believe the Holy Spirit speaks to the Pope and not to Kenneth Copeland or Oral Roberts or Rick Warren or your local pastor?

You’ve got to admit, 1 billion people holding to the same religious dogma is well nigh a miracle, especially without Catholicism having the benefit of being a state religion.

Thus, I see this as a flaw with both systems, and not a boon to either.

The flaw with yours is that the vast majority of humanity simply doesn’t agree with your interpretation. Many of your coreligionists do not. So unless you can cough up some prophecy, you run right into the wall of not having any authority.

Or as our fundamentalist friends would say, “How do we know your hermeneutic is valid?”

Please see my apology above. My explanation of the concept I was driving at was…less than proficient.

I certainly am prone to this in the heat of argument, but find it helpful not to gild it. Best just to say “I wasn’t clear” or somesuch.

That’s the question I’m left with – why should I accept Roman Catholic explanations rather than non-Roman Catholic ones? Both claim historical support (and depending on what you’re willing to believe and how you think, both can make a decent support of it). Both seem, to differing degrees, to be logical and rational. So, what’s left as a deciding factor? I’m back to having to have faith in the RCC to prove that the RCC is right, and that just won’t do (because it’s a circular argument).

Look at the evidence.

The great thing about being Catholic is that I no longer have to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate Scripture and history to justify whatever the person who founded my spinoff sect thought.

I don’t have to be confined to a tiny bibliography of “approved” works, nor to whittle Scripture down to select verses and their authorized, hermetically-sealed interpretations.

Honest inquiry will point you to the Truth. You’ll find it in Rome.

Now, whether you accept what you find, that’s up to you.

You’re back to this – it makes more sense to you to have a visible earthly leader, because it prevents uncertainty and conflict (okay, so it really doesn’t, but that’s the theory at least), and thus you choose to believe God would have done it this way (assuming that God’s mind works like yours), and therefore you choose to point out the flaws that this supposedly solves.

Continued…

No, we have an earthly leader because God in His wisdom provides them.

Remember Moses?

Remember David?

God, even when physically present as pillar of fire, chooses to speak to us through one of us.

The Catholic Church didn’t make this up; if you didn’t pick this up from Scripture I honestly don’t know what to tell you except that you haven’t read it.

Can you point to one time in Scripture where God spoke to all of His chosen people and did not use a human intermediary?

 

[inkaneer]

PC Master writes: "But since I’ve seen so many differing, and sometimes contradictory, opinions on Mary, the Rosary, the Assumption, Purgatory, Limbo, the Papacy, infallibility, and many other issues, all given by supposedly devout Roman Catholics, there really is uncertainty. What Roman Catholicism is to each of you seems to be tainted as much by personal views as anything.

And finally, again – how do you know God thinks like you do? How do you know your belief of the need for a visible earthly leadership is right? What outside source do you have to validate it?"

REPLY: Opinions don’t count when it comes to doctrine. That is not to say that I believe you that there are that many differing opinions. Because frankly I don’t. But if there were that only means that those people were not properly cachetized or they are not Catholic. Catholicism is not like protestantism where every time you have a difference of opinion a new denomination is formed. There is only one Catholic Church.

Now you ask how do we know God thinks like we do? Well lets look at the old covenant. Did God have an earthly leader for his people? I think He did. Staring with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, we find leaders like Moses, Aaron, Saul, David, Solomon and a host of others. Now if the OT foreshadows the NT it makes sense that God would have an earthly leader for his people in the NT. Then we have the actual words of Jesus telling Peter to feed and rule over his flock [John 21:15-17]. I think you have to pull the old ostrich head in the sand trick to say that God left His church without an earthly leader.

 

[pneuma07]

Only one real thing has to be accepted/rejected – that the working of the Holy Spirit comes to the individual believer, as opposed to the leadership of the RCC. With this, you can still maintain that God chooses to work through various individuals throughout history (ECFs, scripture authors, etc… The main difference it makes is that faith in God now becomes a personal journey

 

[pneuma07]

But since I’ve seen so many differing, and sometimes contradictory, opinions on Mary, the Rosary, the Assumption, Purgatory, Limbo, the Papacy, infallibility, and many other issues, all given by supposedly devout Roman Catholics, there really is uncertainty. What Roman Catholicism is to each of you seems to be tainted as much by personal views as anything.

 

[pneuma07]

How do you know your belief of the need for a visible earthly leadership is right? QUOTE]

On this specific point you have already received important observations. Here is a further :twocents: in reply:

• 17 Obey your leaders and do what they say. They keep watch over your souls. They have to tell God what they have done.*

From Heb. 13

And the context clearly points to a “visible earthly leadership”, do you agree ?

At present, who are your leaders ?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The only reason we have any assurance of the Bible’s inspiration is b/c of an earthy authority. It doesn’t make sense any other way. Jesus Himself did not write anything, and the books contained w/in the Bible were written through men - Apostles - the earthly authority at that time. Can you show, biblically, that this earthly authority was to end with the death of the last Apostle?

If the books were unanimously accepted as inspired already, then what was the point of the councils? The canon wasn’t simply proclaimed from what was already universally accepted - there had to have been some debate as to which writings were inspired. And the resulting canon was undisputed until the Reformation, so, either the early church had an infallible list of books or a church gravely in error happened to get the canon correct (which seems very unlikely. Would you accept the books of other heretical churches?). Everyone recognized the authority of the church that gave us the canon.

And if there had been faithful churches outside of the RCC there most likely would have been some record of their canon. It is highly unlikely that theirs and the RCCs would be the same. The closest in history I can find to a church that resembled the Protestantism of today is the Waldenses of the 12th century who had their own version of the Gospel of John. They also claimed apostolic origins but the unanimous concensus on those claims is that the documents used to support it were tampered with. There simply is no record of there ever having been a Christian church outside of the RCC (aside from the known heretical groups and the Orthodox churches). So, if there were bible-believing Christians or believers that worshipped together following the original teachings of the Apostles (other than the RCC, Orthodox CC and heretics who claimed to do so) there is no record of them. Where was their light? They were supposed to be proclaiming the Gospel to the ends of the earth, yet we don’t know of them? The only other option to believe as far as I can see is that the gates of Hell prevailed against the church for over a thousand years until the Waldenses arose, the Anabaptists, the Reformation (the only groups resembling protestantism of today).

Without an earthly authority why were there ever writings bound as canon to begin with? There is no record of the Apostles having told them to do so. Who gave the authority to decide? Who had the authority to decide which books to include? Do you really believe it was unanimously agreed upon? Isn’t the purpose of having canonized it to prevent those who disagreed on which were inspired writings from promoting a false gospel? Where are the other versions? Why was this canon accepted if there was contention about the church having authority? And what ever became of those groups that disagreed with that canon?

If this church had authority (and I hope you will see that it must have) then we must know what sorts of beliefs it held. There is no doubt (at least for me) that it was very Catholic in its beliefs regardless of formal pronouncements. Infant baptism, real presence in Eucharist, papacy, etc… I know the writings of the ECF aren’t infallible, but look at the context of the writings and see how authoritative the remarks about these (now) doctrines are. They are not merely opinions - what was written was not in secret. These prominent Christians had Catholic beliefs and there was no protesting their remarks - not for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I don’t think that makes sense that the canon was universally accepted before the church declared it inspired, as I’ve shown above - at least not sensible to me. The only other thing I can think of why anyone would accept the Catholic canon is if they didn’t believe the early church held Catholic beliefs - believing perhaps that it wasn’t until they were officially declared that the church was apostate - but with such prominent men making it obvious that they believed these things before an official declaration it seems to me that the church would have already been so far off from “Biblical, Apostolic Christianity” that nothing that came from it would have been acceptable - certainly not a canon of what they interpret to be inspired writings. Why would I trust its interpretation of anything then if I wouldn’t trust it now? If I don’t like how today they use Matthew’s “keys to the kingdom” to support the papacy, then why accept their opinion on which, of all the books then circulating, were inspired? Maybe the RCC included the Gospel of Matthew in its canon to support the papacy and perhaps it isn’t really an inspired work afterall. There is no way to know unless you trust the church’s authority.

cont…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Yes, I’m fallible and my judgements could be wrong, but it seems to defy logic that I could accept the Bible at all if I were not going to accept the church it came from as well. When I thought otherwise it was b/c of the supposed inconsistencies I saw with the doctrine vs the Bible - but I really have no right to make that jugement. I think my fallible judgement about the church is more trustworthy than my fallible judgement of the Scriptures b/c I have a picture of what the early church (that gave us the canon) looked like via the ECF writings, Didache, etc… I thought they definately seem to contradict the Bible. It seemed logical to me that if they contradicted one another (IMO) then I should accept the writings of the Apostles over those of the ECFs, etc., however…it was from these same men that the canon came to be determined. No, either I am wrong about everything else in the early church contradicting the Bible (and the RCCs teachings contradicting the Bible as well) or I am wrong to accept the Bible in the first place. Accepting the authority of the ECF in what they taught is no different than accepting their authority in what they proclaimed to be inspired (canon) and accepting what they proclaimed to be inspired is no different than accepting what else they taught.

I can’t see any other possibility.

Peace

 

[rad314]

PC Master, my friend, just a few comments on your recent lengthy posts.

1.) I think if you would check some of the references I (and others) have suggested, you would see that it’s not circular – it’s spiral. You might not have ready access to the Keating book, but the links were right here on catholic.com.

2.) You refer to your view that the ‘body and blood of Christ’ language in the NT is clearly symbolic. For one thing, I think all the ECFs are against you on that one. But I think the end of Jn 6 is very telling. Don’t you find it a little hard to believe that anyone would leave Jesus’ company over merely symbolic language? Doesn’t it seem odd that if it was merely symbolic language, Jesus would have said, ‘Hey, wait, guys! It’s just symbolic. My goodness – I don’t mean it literally!’ But, again, Keating and the articles available at catholic.com express all this much better than some of us (certainly I) in this forum. At a minimum, you would do well to post your questions in the ‘Ask an apologist’ forum – but I don’t know your motivation, of course.

3.) Are individual Catholics fallible? Well, of course! That’s not the point – the point is that the Church’s formal teaching isn’t.

 

[agangbern]

What then does you reason lead you to believe?

That it is not the best interpreter of Divine Revelation ever.
And that the best candidate to the job is precisely … the Catholic Church.

That is a great answer!

 

[rad314]

. . . Doesn’t it seem odd that if it was merely symbolic language, Jesus would have said, ‘Hey, wait, guys! It’s just symbolic. My goodness – I don’t mean it literally!’ . . .

Scratch ‘odd’. I was typing faster than I was thinking.

 

[PC_Master]

PC Master, my friend, just a few comments on your recent lengthy posts.

Let me say that I appreciate you addressing the intended goal of my posts, rather than playing semantical games as others have done.

1.) I think if you would check some of the references I (and others) have suggested, you would see that it’s not circular – it’s spiral. You might not have ready access to the Keating book, but the links were right here on catholic.com.

I have read most of the links that have been given to me on the topic over time. The continual problem is this – it all comes down to interpreting the ECFs and scripture in a particular way. But you have yet to answer – how do you know that your chosen interpretation is actually right? It seems to me like you’re interpreting the past based on your views of the present and how you think things should be.

Admittedly, I’m guilty of bias as well, but at least I acknowledge this.

As for the spiral argument, it goes something like this…

1. Analyzing the Bible and early fathers as historical works, we can determine that they’re not forgeries, etc. These works are genuine.
2. Within them, Christ says he’s going to establish a church against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Assuming Christ wasn’t insane, we must believe he’s actually capable of doing this.
3. History shows that the organization which has become the Roman Catholic Church was the church established.
4. Since we know that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church, we can trust what that church says.
5. Therefore we know that scripture and tradition are valid.

I agree that most of this is logical. The problem is point three above. Your interpretation of history shows that the RCC was Christ’s established church. But how do you know your interpretation is right, and isn’t biased based on what you want to believe?

2.) You refer to your view that the ‘body and blood of Christ’ language in the NT is clearly symbolic. For one thing, I think all the ECFs are against you on that one.

This is exactly my point – you interpret the ECFs in a certain way. I interpret them differently. I don’t think most of them had any idea of the concept of transubstantiation, but rather were speaking symbolically. I don’t know that my interpretation is right, and the only thing either of us can base our interpretations on, ultimately, is our faith. Unless, of course, you can logically and reasonably exclude the possibility of the “body and blood” of Christ being a symbolic connection when connected with the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/etc.

But I think the end of Jn 6 is very telling. Don’t you find it a little hard to believe that anyone would leave Jesus’ company over merely symbolic language?

Could you explain your thoughts here a little more?

At a minimum, you would do well to post your questions in the ‘Ask an apologist’ forum – but I don’t know your motivation, of course.

It’s unlikely that that would help, as I’d just get surface apologetics, rather than real explanations that I’m after.

3.) Are individual Catholics fallible? Well, of course! That’s not the point – the point is that the Church’s formal teaching isn’t.

The RCC is made up of a collection of fallible people. I do understand the Roman Catholic point of view on this, really, but what I keep asking is – how do you know that the RCC really is infallible in its teaching. Your answer is “Jesus said so in Matthew 18”. But according to whose interpretation of that passage? The verse does not explicitly say “…I will build my church as a visible earthly organization and it shall never teach error”.

Hopefully you at least understand my confusion.

 

[tdgesq]

Perhaps. But then, if it’s an illusion, what does it really change for me? If the things I believe to have been acts of God are actually someone sitting at a computer terminal in the “real world” controlling a simulation of which I am a part…what difference does it make for me? Can I ever prove it? Is there any evidence to truly support it? It’s a nice idea, but it’s totally hypothetical.

And that is my point. It is a useless inquiry. Just as useless as giving credence to the fatalistic question “isn’t it possible I am wrong” on any given historical inquiry, whether it involves the authority of the Church or not.

Indeed – But I’m guessing that you and I have both looked at historical information already and have come to differing opinions on it. I see someone speak of confessing sins, and I’ll see it to mean confessing to a Christian brother. You’ll read the same passage and assume it means confession to a priest as it’s practiced in Roman Catholicism. I read “body and blood of the Lord”, and assume it’s using the same symbolic language used in scripture. You, on the other hand, assume it to speak of transubstantiation.

So we have differing opinions - now which one corresponds to the truth, which we can only obtain at the outset through logic and the empirical. You treat our interpretation of history as somehow coming from a different place than reason and history. How? That is the basis for knowledge of all things. We have no means of interpretation apart from logic and the empirical. If you want to criticize my mode of interpretation on the basis that it is illogical or not supported by history, then have at it. In fact, I have charged you in the past of using inconsistent (fallacious) standards of interpretation when viewing historical support for the authority of the Church versus the authority of Scripture.

We each color history by our own beliefs.

You mean we color history based upon our own unsupported beliefs. Maybe that is your view of yourself, but it hardly applies to me. If we “color” history based upon our own beliefs that are supported by reason, then I say the more coloring the better.

Most are not willing to even accept that they do this, and yet it’s all too obvious.

So some people do color history based on unsupported beliefs, and it is obvious. I agree. But how do you determine that? You can’t see into a person’s mind or heart. You figure it out the same way the rest of us do, by once again appealing to reason and evidence to demonstrate that is what they are doing.

What I’m looking for, and have been looking for, is evidence that truly shows that the early church held the same beliefs the modern RCC does, and that it practiced the same things, etc. I’ve yet, no matter how open I try to be, to see anything conclusive on this point.

Why doesn’t that surprise me? Nothing is conclusive according to you unless we can affirmatively state that it is impossible we are wrong. So long as it is possible that you or I could be wrong, nothing is conclusive, which practically means that nothing about the world can be known. You’ve destroyed knowledge.

But probably more to the point, Catholics don’t understand it to be necessary that the early Church held the same beliefs in the same way that we do today. The development of doctrine is itself a Tradition of the Church attested to by history. Why should I not inform myself with the the theology of Aquinas to understand how the body and blood of Christ can really be present under the appearance of bread and wine?

Obviously, either your interpretation of some historical things is wrong, or mine is…or perhaps both are. If it requires interpretation in the slightest, then we, as human beings, can mess it up.

If the standard is that we can’t know something if there is any possibility we could be wrong, then nothing can be known. Maybe you are ready to declare yourself a philosophical skeptic.

 

[tdgesq]

And what objective criteria do you use to determine what’s a valid interpretation of history? You own personal (fallible) view? Or perhaps my own personal (fallible) view is better? What about another person’s view?

The same thing we use for every truth claim, logic and the empirical.

My point is we’re all capable of deceiving ourselves into believing that history, reason, logic, and fact support our own views. I think this is a skill we practice all the time. We assume what is to be proved without proof.

That we are capable of it is not the question. It is whether we are doing it. I say that I am not and neither are many of the Catholics on this thread. If you think you can show I’m begging the question (circular reasoning), have at it. But understand that you are going to have to use logic to do so.

The reason you can’t apply the same criteria to scripture is that it’s no more an absolute source than the papacy is. You keep assuming me to be a sola scripturist.

I don’t assume you to hold to sola scriptura. I don’t have to. If you view Scripture as an authority then you have to give a coherent justification like everybody else for their claims. Are you saying you don’t hold to the authority of Scripture?

Sometimes. That’s why I continually pray that I’ll be open to the truth, even if I don’t currently see that truth. I don’t just think I might be fallible – I know I’m fallible. If there is a God, as I believe there is, and if he is loving, as I believe he is, and if his desire is to guide those who seek him into all truth, as I believe the case to be, then I have to trust that God will do what he said he’d do.

And I daresay that you didn’t reach those conclusions based upon mere faith, or childhood prejudices, or whatever else is opposed to reason. When I pray to God and ask for wisdom, I certainly don’t assume that it will be contrary to reason. I hope that knowing you are fallible isn’t subject to the same standard of having to be without the possibility that you could be wrong.

Yes, but what you’re actually showing is that you have taken history (which we all know is incomplete and is missing lots of bits and pieces that we wish it had retained) and created an outline which fits what history we have, showing it to support your conclusions. But scientists, theologians, historians, et al are constantly taking the same data and coming to differing conclusions.

Okay, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything about them, and it doesn’t mean that many of those people can’t be shown to be incorrect.

 

[PC_Master]

I’d written a fairly lengthy reply, but it seems that your main point is that logic and reason alone can be used to prove that the RCC is the church established by Christ. So, the floor is yours. Let’s start with the basics, and work our way up to the more complex issues. I really am looking forward to what you will provide, because I’ve been trying to find logical and reasonable explanations here for a long time.

I await your response.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’d written a fairly lengthy reply, but it seems that your main point is that logic and reason alone can be used to prove that the RCC is the church established by Christ. So, the floor is yours. Let’s start with the basics, and work our way up to the more complex issues. I really am looking forward to what you will provide, because I’ve been trying to find logical and reasonable explanations here for a long time.

I await your response.

The most logical and reasonable explanation is that you need to trust God and the people he sends your way to show you the way.

Without this simple trust, there is nothing left to say.

 

[PC_Master]

That is not logical – that’s a matter of faith. As to the logic – how am I to know that Satan didn’t influence someone to come my way to mislead me?

If God truly worked the way you suggest, then surely everyone on the planet would agree by now, except for those who are deceiving themselves into rejecting God.

No, that just doesn’t work. You want me to have faith and trust in your conclusions – I want you to support your conclusions, and will not simply accept them because you say I should trust you.

In fact, trust is not required if logic and reason alone can establish things as tdgesq seems to be saying they can.

Also, allow me to clarify something. I’m not expecting that anyone else besides tdgesq can reasonably respond to my request. I’m not excluding the possibility, but I understand that not everyone would share his views.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

That is not logical – that’s a matter of faith. As to the logic – how am I to know that Satan didn’t influence someone to come my way to mislead me?

If God truly worked the way you suggest, then surely everyone on the planet would agree by now, except for those who are deceiving themselves into rejecting God.

No, that just doesn’t work. You want me to have faith and trust in your conclusions – I want you to support your conclusions, and will not simply accept them because you say I should trust you.

In fact, trust is not required if logic and reason alone can establish things as tdgesq seems to be saying they can.

Also, allow me to clarify something. I’m not expecting that anyone else besides tdgesq can reasonably respond to my request. I’m not excluding the possibility, but I understand that not everyone would share his views.

But these things have already been explained to you and you do not accept them. As I said before, without this simple trust, there is nothing left to say.

I personally do hope you do well with your search and God bless you richly as he lets his light shine on you. Take care