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

[Newbie2]

So how does one determine the bible is “from God” any more than the Koran or the Book of Mormon? In particular, how does one determine this if one assumes the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church, for that matter) is false?

Why does the bible receive a free pass, but not the Church?

Excellent point. Scripture is not self-authenticating as a canon. Both Scripture and Tradition take faith to accept as authority.

 

[clmowry]

Why does one need assume the Orthodox Church is false just because they assume the Roman Catholic Church to be false?

You don’t if you are arguing that you believe everything that the Orthodox Church teaches and only disagree with those theological points where the two churches differ.

But I don’t think this is the position being taken is it?

Chuck

 

[JJR1453]

Joy> I’m glad to see someone else is as confused with the circular logic as I am. You’ve echoed quite a bit of what I’ve been thinking and saying lately.

Why does one need assume the Orthodox Church is false just because they assume the Roman Catholic Church to be false?

As for the validity of scripture, that seems a separate argument. I think all of us non-Roman-Catholics would all agree that we believe in the Bible due to faith that God preserved his teachings in that way.

Because there’s no external source which is able to validate the RCC’s apparent contradictions.

With scripture, I ultimately believe in it because the holy spirit has confirmed to me that it is valid. However, the holy spirit has not done the same for the RCC, for me. Thus, I have no means by which to evaluate the validity of the RCC, except for it’s own self-teachings, which to me, could be the work of Satan without us being able to discern that.

If the RCC is false, what it teaches doesn’t matter. You can’t justify the RCC with its own teachings. You need an external source. Scripture could somewhat be considered external, as it is at the least external to today’s church governing bodies. None of them have had direct (name removed by moderator)ut into what scripture says.

That may be, but can you show me that having traditions not present in the apostolic church as rules of faith is supported by scripture?

In that instance, the “church” is the “assembly of called out followers of Christ”. That is, the congregation of all true believers in Jesus as savior is the group who you must bring an errant brother before.

Why should the majority be used as a measuring rod? It’s the same reason that “the prayers of a righteous man avail much” – by comparing with outside sources, one can remove or lessen the possibility of acting errantly. For instance, let’s say you and I are in the first-century church together. Let’s say I do something you don’t feel is appropriate for a Christian. You approach me; I explain that I believe it’s valid, and that you’re simply biased. So, on the possibility that you are indeed biased, we bring in other sources – first a few, and then the whole congregation. Doing this, while thereby exposing me to potential public ridicule, gives greater certainty of the accuracy and righteousness of the claims against me. If the congregation in question was taught in a godly fashion (as would clearly have been the case in the apostles’ churches), the whole of the congregation will be able to recognize the sin, or lack thereof, and thus appropriate action can be determined.

Absolutely, but there’s no reason to believe Paul spoke of the church as a religious organization, or as anything other than simply the overall congregation of all Christian believers.

You claim that he was speaking of the RCC based on an interpretation by the same entity! This is the circular logic that fails to help any such discussion as this.

Continued…

I have only read up until this post quoted above so forgive me if I missed anything, kinda pinched for time at the moment.

Nevertheless, this post is exactly what the Church is. It is a very good explanation and understanding on how the RCC is “guided into all truths”. It is this same man brought forth to the Church that, I believe, could very well represent protestantism as a whole, or if you like the heretical views of one man spread abroad.
You believe it is circular logic that the Church interprets itself in the Bible for which the “Church” is spoken of??.. This only affirms your belief that Protestanism in itself was born much later down the road ie- Not of God but of man, unless of course you hold to the belief that whatever denomination you attend was an invisble Church at the time of the very visible Catholic Church

God bless,

 

[PC_Master]

Which Church has existed since Pentecost in 33 A.D. to the present day?

Which Church produced the Bible?

Which Church has a track record of being resistant to heresy acknowledged by others?

As to these three questions, you have a faulty premise – that any one church existing today must have existed back in that time, and accurately represents the church that existed in those days.

That this is not the case is the very point I’m making. The question should not be “Which church alive today did that?”. It should be, “Which church of today is the closest in belief to the church that did that?”.

Every branch of Christianity can trace its history, at some point, to the apostolic church. Protestants trace back through middle-ages Roman Catholicism (not to be confused with Roman Catholicism of today, which is substantially different), to the pre-Great-Schism church (which again, should not be confused with other church periods), back to the apostolic church (yet again, not to be confused with others).

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism trace themselves back through to the pre-Great-Schism church, all the way back to the apostolic church (of course, along the way there, you’d be merging in groups which later schismed with that church).

You start, once again, with the preconception that Rome is right. You assume that anything that broke with Rome actually broke from it.

Which Church did Peter head after having been given the keys by Christ?

As I’ve previously pointed out, the church of that time wasn’t a religious organization, the person who’s supposed to be greatest of all is not supposed to lead as you claim Peter did, and the keys were certainly not given to Peter alone.

Also of note is that the one true church in the New Testament was the Apostolic Church, to which Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and every other Christian group throughout history can trace itself.

Each Protestant grouping may believe itself to be right, as do the EO. The RCC is no different however. Each group has reasonings the others reject, and each group insists the others are in error, and that it is the one which most accurately represents God’s desires for the faithful. The only difference, really, is that Rome insists it cannot be wrong. Protestants realize they are only human.

You don’t if you are arguing that you believe everything that the Orthodox Church teaches and only disagree with those theological points where the two churches differ.

I have not studied a lot about Orthodoxy. My point was mainly one of the logic of it.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

You believe it is circular logic that the Church interprets itself in the Bible for which the “Church” is spoken of??.. This only affirms your belief that Protestanism in itself was born much later down the road ie- Not of God but of man, unless of course you hold to the belief that whatever denomination you attend was an invisble Church at the time of the very visible Catholic Church

Your reasoning astounds me. I think, however, you’ve overlooked my basic premise. The first century church wasn’t any denomination of Protestant, Roman Catholic, or anything else. It was the one true church. Later, heretics began to spring up, and so some writers took the use of the word catholic (universal) to better make the distinction.

The problem is, beyond that, we have very little information to actually know how the church developed from there. Eventually, as it got larger, and as Rome made it the state religion, the practices and customs changed, moving away from the apostolic church’s methods, and away from God. It is this flaw the Reformers (and various other schisms throughout history) though themselves to be correcting. One side believed the other was stepping away from God’s truth, and thus separated from the other and attempted to restore, or maintain God’s truth as they saw it.

Now, of course, that’s not saying every schismatic group is right, but how are we to tell? All Rome has is the same as every other group has – its own words saying that it is God’s true church. And what makes Rome more worthy of belief than any other group?

Sure, Rome claims to have the valid successor to Peter, but then again most non-Roman-Catholic groups don’t, and throughout history never did, believe in the supreme authority of the pope. So, the successor of Peter means nothing in terms of persuasion.

What then, is left to validate Roman Catholicism?

Apostolic succession, papal infallibility, infallibility of the church magisterium, so-called “unity”, being named “Catholic”, and claiming the guiding of the holy spirit are things which are either not exclusive to Rome, or which are simply rejected by history.

The only reason one has to accept these things is because Rome says so; because Rome interprets scripture and church history in a particular way; because Rome gives self-evidence. This, to me, is a horrible reason to believe anything.

Sure, I believe scripture is a good external source, in that it was created by those who were “closest” to God. I trust the first century church, as described by scripture. But that doesn’t lead me to see the Roman Catholic Church, any more than it does Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Assyrian Church of the East, all of which have sprouted from that first-century apostolic church, as valid.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Finally back…

So how does one determine the bible is “from God” any more than the Koran or the Book of Mormon?

My faith in Christ is not solely from the Bible first of all (but not from any one, sole, religious entity/denomination either), although the most difinitive proof I can find to validate Christianity is the Bible which is incredibly difficult to discard as being anything other than divine in origin when you take into account its historical, geographic, even scientific at times, accuracy, as well as the fluidity of it considering its many writers, fulfilled prophecy… The Bible has a lot going for it. Add to that personal experience with a living God through prayer etc and the truth and beauty contained in His teachings despite their paradoxical nature and Christianity takes first place for me. From there, in this age I have an infallible source to turn to regarding Jesus. I may not know which church to turn to right off, but I know ALL of the denoms agree that the Bible is inspired, and know what texts they all agree are inspired. True at one time there was no written infallible source to turn to, and perhaps many people were following error at that time, but you also cannot prove that there were not, no matter how scarce, faithful followers of true, apostolic Christianity. I believe Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church and I also see evidence of small, faithful groups whose beliefs were handed down despite horrific persecution. Just like the early church many had to go into hiding but their light was not extinquished. Catholics like to point out the visibility (meaning popularity) of the CC as proof of its authenticity, but like I pointed out earlier, there were times in the OT when there was none but a handful of righteous people on the entire face of the earth. Jesus’ faith is a small flock. He said there would be few.

I have seen many n-Cs assert that because the Catholic Church has no definitive document that “infallibly interprets every scripture” that it is somehow deficient,

I’m not expecting it to have such a document but the fact that it claims to have THE infallible interpretation on ANY scriptures at all despite what look like obvious contraditions to some scriptures makes its infallibility claim unbelievable.

When Our Lord established His church in the Gospels the authority & promise of infallibility (that the gates of hell will not prevail against it) were given to the apostles and passed down from them.

I agree the gospels attest to the authority of the apostles, and I certainly see the attempt by the apostles to have those after them retain the Traditions, but I see no proof that those who came after them remained entirely faithful to those Traditions, and the only way to tell if they did is to look at the teachings of the apostles which is… In The Bible.

The early church that transmitted these sacred truths, (including the canon of scripture) bears no close doctrinal resemblance to the modern post reformation step children, or their errant reformer “heroes”.
They broke that historical connection some 500 years ago and one need only read the earliest ECFs to see that that is so.

I agree that many of the so called reformers were also in error, but I think error was already infecting the church even in the apostles’ times. That is obvious from scripture. Like a disease it spread and like a snowball it got bigger and bigger as time went on. I do think the reformers were on the right track, but just like the errors in Catholicism (I mean the ones even Catholics will admit to) there was sinful humanity and Satan to make the reformation attempts full of error as well. I do not believe there is one perfect church. I believe the pillar of truth that are the church are those who passionately, humbly and faithfully obey God’s Word; the truth the church should be holding up. Not all SS-believing churches are that pillar just b/c they recognize the bible as the authority. They have to be living examples of that truth. It’s hard to find, but there are some, and if you were the only one doing it in a given area, well, then the gates of hell still will not have prevailed . It’s about holiness of life…
cont…

 

[Teflon93]

As to these three questions, you have a faulty premise – that any one church existing today must have existed back in that time, and accurately represents the church that existed in those days.

Do you not believe Christ when he said he would found His Church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it?

If you do, it had to be a church in existence at Pentecost.

That this is not the case is the very point I’m making. The question should not be “Which church alive today did that?”. It should be, “Which church of today is the closest in belief to the church that did that?”.

No difference. Look at the practices Justin Martyr described in some of our earliest extant liturgical evidence (2nd century). Does it look more like a Mass or a Protestant gathering?
The answer is Mass.

Every branch of Christianity can trace its history, at some point, to the apostolic church. Protestants trace back through middle-ages Roman Catholicism (not to be confused with Roman Catholicism of today, which is substantially different), to the pre-Great-Schism church (which again, should not be confused with other church periods), back to the apostolic church (yet again, not to be confused with others).

All this means is that at some point various denominations ceased to be in perfect communion with the line of men Christ endowed with binding and loosing authority. That presents a problem for you. For those who have abided with the Church Christ founded, that is not a problem. It used to be a problem for me, but I solved it by converting and thus renouncing the errors of my youth. Thank God!

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism trace themselves back through to the pre-Great-Schism church, all the way back to the apostolic church (of course, along the way there, you’d be merging in groups which later schismed with that church).

Wrong. There is no such thing as Roman Catholicism. It is a slur used by Protestants who justify their own lust for endless schism.

By way of evidence, Eastern Catholics do not fit into Eastern Orthodox nor Roman Catholic buckets. Your intent of course is not to describe but to denigrate and deceive.

You start, once again, with the preconception that Rome is right. You assume that anything that broke with Rome actually broke from it.

There is no difference between these two, because heresy perfected in schism does indeed destroy unity.

As I’ve previously pointed out, the church of that time wasn’t a religious organization, the person who’s supposed to be greatest of all is not supposed to lead as you claim Peter did, and the keys were certainly not given to Peter alone.

They most certainly were. Given to him, then extended to the Apostles. If you loved Scripture more, you’d torture it less. Or does the thinking of long-dead heretics rate higher in importance to Scripture in your view?

Also of note is that the one true church in the New Testament was the Apostolic Church, to which Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and every other Christian group throughout history can trace itself.

Tracing is not fidelity. The adulterous ex-husband can trace himself to the wife he betrayed.

Each Protestant grouping may believe itself to be right, as do the EO. The RCC is no different however. Each group has reasonings the others reject, and each group insists the others are in error, and that it is the one which most accurately represents God’s desires for the faithful. The only difference, really, is that Rome insists it cannot be wrong. Protestants realize they are only human.

Catholic Church - A.D. 33. Eastern Orthodox - A.D. 1054. Protestant Anarchy - A.D. 1517.

The Catholic Church insists that Protestants cannot do simple math. They are a millennium-and-a-half too late to be Christ’s Church.

I have not studied a lot about Orthodoxy. My point was mainly one of the logic of it.

Continued…

No kidding.

 

[PC_Master]

JoyToBeCatholic> Excellent posts. You’re saying a lot of stuff that I myself feel.

Catholics like to point out the visibility (meaning popularity) of the CC as proof of its authenticity, but like I pointed out earlier, there were times in the OT when there was none but a handful of righteous people on the entire face of the earth. Jesus’ faith is a small flock. He said there would be few.

Bingo!

I agree the gospels attest to the authority of the apostles, and I certainly see the attempt by the apostles to have those after them retain the Traditions, but I see no proof that those who came after them remained entirely faithful to those Traditions, and the only way to tell if they did is to look at the teachings of the apostles which is… In The Bible.

This is exactly the point! It’s also probably one of the things that all Protestants would agree on.

Do you not believe Christ when he said he would found His Church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it?

Of course I believe Christ. I just don’t think he meant what you think he meant.

If you do, it had to be a church in existence at Pentecost.

And as I covered, every Christian church can trace their history back to Pentecost.

No difference. Look at the practices Justin Martyr described in some of our earliest extant liturgical evidence (2nd century). Does it look more like a Mass or a Protestant gathering?
The answer is Mass.

So because it looks more like a Mass than a Protestant church service (in your opinion), that somehow means that it’s totally reflecting Roman Catholicism? Wow. That’s a jump.

Wrong. There is no such thing as Roman Catholicism. It is a slur used by Protestants who justify their own lust for endless schism.

There’s a thread for this. Take it there, rather than trying to gain traction and stir up strife here.

By way of evidence, Eastern Catholics do not fit into Eastern Orthodox nor Roman Catholic buckets. Your intent of course is not to describe but to denigrate and deceive.

Eastern Rite Roman Catholics, you mean? (That was rhetorical, by the way. I know you disagree.)

There is no difference between these two, because heresy perfected in schism does indeed destroy unity.

The EO might say Rome was the heretic. Why is their word less valid than yours?

They most certainly were. Given to him, then extended to the Apostles. If you loved Scripture more, you’d torture it less. Or does the thinking of long-dead heretics rate higher in importance to Scripture in your view?

Rhetoric notwithstanding, the problem seems to be that you and I have differing interpretations of scripture.

Tracing is not fidelity. The adulterous ex-husband can trace himself to the wife he betrayed.

That doesn’t even make sense.

Catholic Church - A.D. 33. Eastern Orthodox - A.D. 1054. Protestant Anarchy - A.D. 1517.

Incorrect.

Apostolic (also later named Catholic) Church - A.D. 33 (approx)
Great Schism in the pre-Great-Schism Church, a descendant of the Apostolic Church, resulting in formation of Eastern Orthodoxy and the RCC - A.D. 1054
Another split, resulting in the Protestant Reformation - A.D. 1517

The Catholic Church insists that Protestants cannot do simple math. They are a millennium-and-a-half too late to be Christ’s Church.

You won’t even accept that the Eastern Orthodox were a large portion of the largest Christian church up until the Great Schism. You speak of it like they suddenly became schismatic and started being heretical.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I’d love to hear your theory about constitutional government and the question of judicial restraint.

I know it wasn’t addressed to me, but I’ll take a stab at it. The problem with comparing God’s revelation to the Constitution and the Catholic Church/an earthly, extra-biblical authority to the US Government is that each deals with different kingdoms. The government deals with everyone whether they are living in the flesh/unsaved or not (the earthly kingdom). The church should not deal with the converted as such (the heavenly kingdom) as they have the law “written in their hearts” already. And perhaps, they don’t need the church/government to “interpret” what they already understand; like the Gentiles who are a law unto themselves who by nature obey the law. Of course, this is all assuming the church is comprised of the truly converted, which is hardly possible for the majority of fallen humanity if they are baptized as infants when they haven’t even the capacity to be converted. It can and should give direction to help its members live in a sin-steeped world but it shouldn’t bind its members to man-made laws. The problem is that many church practices and teachings are binding which inevitably produces mindless drones who will just obey w/out what is really necessary for that obedience to matter: faith and contrition. And if one’s heart is truly circumcized by faith and contrition it doesn’t need threats from the church (“by pain of mortal sin” etc.) to “keep them in line”. Colossians 2:20 *Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, *

*21(Touch not; taste not; handle not; **22Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? *
Civil law is an attempt to keep order amongst those who disregard the natural law/moral law. There are many good, righteous, law-abiding citizens who are such b/c of the goodness of their hearts and are not even in need of civil law, but the law has to be there for those who are not so good. But God’s laws are not an attempt to keep order amongst all of humanity. The Bible is God’s revelation to us but more than that it requires a response - that of faith expressed through love and obedience - from each of us. But God knows MOST of humanity will not respond that way! Now personally, I see nothing wrong with voluntary submission to a church with certain restrictions; a voluntary church (similar to a religious order with different disciplines and charisms) but I reject the idea of ONE particular governing body that gives binding rules (abstinance on Good Friday; Holy Days of Obligation, etc) to all of Christendom. Everyone is differnt and what may be a virtue for one (abstaining from meat) could be sin for someone else (someone proud of his mortification). It is pointless and is a sure way to get many, lukewarm, uncoverted people infecting the fold and causing the downfall of the church/parish/denomination. The church is for the converted. It’s not an initiation game of getting as many members as possible and then needing to keep them in line b/c most of them weren’t ever really converted. I believe the CC tries to remedy this by having helps/sacraments/sacramentals, etc. to help the unregenerated; perhaps to bring about conversion (?) or, unfortunately, and most likely, to make the unregenerated feel secure.

This from someone whose going by the name “JoyToBeCatholic?” It’s no wonder Truth escapes you.

I was once a devout Catholic. I choose that name b/c it was, at that time, a joy to me that I was Catholic, but after diving into scripture for spiritual nourishment after having been w/out daily communion and mass due to Celiac Sprue dx (long story - I finally got the low-gluten hosts - and yes, i shoulda been able to receive the cup, but I wasn’t allowed…) made me doubt the CC. The celiac issue caused me doubt which I soon overcame, but it was Scripture that totally had me stumped and in need to re-look at my Catholic heritage through Scriptural lenses.
cont…

 

[Dauphin]

The real circularity and absurdity is in the protestant argument. They claim to believe that the Bible is the only Word of God, but they don’t seem to understand where the Bible came from! By placing their faith in the canon of scripture, they’re really placing their faith in the judgement of the Catholic church. It boggles the mind how protestants can continue to ignore this. How do they know what the canon of scripture is? “The Holy Spirit told me” just isn’t good enough!

Hearing protestants talk, you’d really think that Christ just handed the Bible to the apostles and told them “that’s all ya need!”. It’s absurd! Christ founded a church!

 

[Dauphin]

I was once a devout Catholic. I choose that name b/c it was, at that time, a joy to me that I was Catholic, but after diving into scripture for spiritual nourishment after having been w/out daily communion and mass due to Celiac Sprue dx (long story - I finally got the low-gluten hosts - and yes, i shoulda been able to receive the cup, but I wasn’t allowed…) made me doubt the CC. The celiac issue caused me doubt which I soon overcame, but it was Scripture that totally had me stumped and in need to re-look at my Catholic heritage through Scriptural lenses.
cont…

Oh my goodness! You’re right! When Christ said “This IS My Body”, he really meant “This sorta symbolises my body. It’s like a metaphor, see?” Wow! I never saw that before.

 

[Teflon93]

Oh my goodness! You’re right! When Christ said “This IS My Body”, he really meant “This sorta symbolises my body. It’s like a metaphor, see?” Wow! I never saw that before.

Christ is obviously speaking literally when he says something Protestants wish to believe and metaphorically when he says something they do not wish to believe.

This is the only way to understand their inconsistencies.

 

[HailMary]

There is a great amount of wisdom in this.

To hold the position that fallen men are better able to teach God’s doctrines than God Himself is, is a serious mistake.

The funny thing is I AGREE WITH YOU since you cannot infallible interpret scripture because you are not the Church. The Church has this power, try Matt16:18, Matt. 18:17-18, etc

The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the "Pillar and Ground of the Truth

Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church

Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

.The idea of the Scripture’s Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church

An “Extra-Biblical” Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.

 

[rwoehmke]

That’s why we have God’s Word in His Scriptures.He told us.
…

Ah, maybe so, but when did He do that? He may have spoken to you, but I haven’t heard Him say so to me. So who’s word outside of the writings of the Bible itself, am I to believe? The Mormons have their book, the Muslims have another, Christians have a third. All claim their book is the word of God. Without God whispering in my ear, who am I to believe? Who has the authority to teach me?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Perhaps we have lack of unity in bible interpretation for the same reasons people failed to understand Jesus’ teachings when He walked the earth. Maybe we need to ask ourselves what we are lacking. Certainly you realize that not everyone understood God’s Word as it FELL FROM HIS OWN LIPS!

Perhaps we all want a “guide” to tell us what we want Jesus’ teachings to mean. Perhaps we want a guide to make us feel secure. If that is the case, then there has not been true conversion yet. Perhaps if we have the right kind of faith, a pure heart, humility, and ready willingness to obey Him, we will understand Him/Scripture, and perhaps those who do have this right disposition do agree with one another in bible interpretation. Perhaps they are few and far between and perhaps they will never even find one another and will have to worship either compromised or alone.

St. Paul plainly contradicts the teachings of Sola Scriptura, and tells Timothy that the pillar and ground of the truth is the church

but what church? The one that closely obeys God’s Word. At that time, there was only one such church; the Apostolic Church in which the Apostles were the authority. Today we still have that authority as if the apostles were still with us - through the Bible.

St. Paul tells him to Carefully study… " and does not specify that his studies should be confined to the scriptures alone. (2nd Timothy 2:15)

But all he had to study were the teachings of the apostles FROM the apostles! And that is exactly what we have today through the Bible. The Bible is “apostolic tradition”; it is that “truth” that the church is supposed to be the pillar of; holding it up as The Authority/Truth.

The inability to prove the CC wrong does not mean it is right. I cannot prove God exists either. You have faith in the CC, not b/c it can be proven to be right, but b/c you believed it was more probable that it was right. But throw Satan in the picture and probability becomes, well, problematic.

There has to be an infallible measure.

Perhaps the things Christianity disagrees w/one another about are not what really divides us at all. Perhaps it is our pride that keeps us all from unity. I think most of Christendom can agree on quite a bit concerning the Bible.

It appears to me that you want us to accept protestant premises as true while rejecting Catholic ones, but that is ridiculous and unfair, and is probably the very kind of circular argument that you are asserting against Catholics.

It’s not that we want to reject them, but that they look obviously contrary to what we all agree to be God’s Word. Likewise, I reject some protestant teachings that look blatantly contrary to scripture.

Scripture is not self-authenticating as a canon. Both Scripture and Tradition take faith to accept as authority.

I don’t necessarily agree with that. I think the CC recognized scripture and perhaps not infallibly. I do trust God’s promise that His Word would stand forever though and therefore, believe that everything necessary for our salvation is contained in the Bible w/out the deuterocanons. I think all denoms agree on the inspiration of most scripture; certainly those that are necessary for our salvation. Also, the Bible IS Tradition and requires faith to accept as authority. The question is whether post-biblical “Tradition” is apostolic/authentic/inspired.

That’s all I can handle for a day…

Peace,

 

[Atemi]

The funny thing is I AGREE WITH YOU since you cannot infallible interpret scripture because you are not the Church. The Church has this power, try Matt16:18, Matt. 18:17-18, etc

Sorry Mary, but “the church,” the Body of Christ, is not the Magisterium of the RCC.

Never has been, never will be.

…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Christ is obviously speaking literally when he says something Protestants wish to believe and metaphorically when he says something they do not wish to believe.

This is the only way to understand their inconsistencies.

Yes, it was painfully obvious to me that it wasn’t literal when looked at in light of the whole of scripture and especially in light of the beginning of that discourse where he says what things give “nourishment”:John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. " Coming to Jesus and believing in Him are that eating and drinking, for they are the things Jesus says will leave you satisfied/not hungry or thirsty (spiritually). Now, if you are thinking with a carnal mind (no offense and not directed at anyone) you will expect his following discourse on eating and drinking to be literal, fleshly, eating and drinking instead of the spiritual, eating and drinking that the believer in Christ partakes of through the Spirit and the Word of God. And the very next verse even explains why the critical mass of disciples would fall away when he is through with His upcoming discourse: 36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not
Even when Jesus walked the earth people did not believe Him and would not believe ANYTHING He taught no matter how simple or complex b/c they weren’t ready to follow Him. Indeed many people still even today turn from Jesus b/c their understanding is not from the right disposition of humility and contrition. They will refuse to try to see the spiritual meaning behind something through their pride and unwillingness to change their lives and conform to Christ (not talking to anyone here specifically and not even to Catholics in general. I know of many holy Catholics and do believe many of the saints were indeed saints).

K, really gotta go for now…

Peace

 

[Sarpedon]

The Great Schism in 1054 resulted in the breaking away of the eastern Catholic Church from the authority of Rome. This was basically an authority issue and not a doctrinal issue. Even today the Eastern Orthodox have almost exactly the same beliefs as the Catholic Church centered in Rome, but they remain separted due to their refusal to accept the pope’s authority. The line of popes in Rome continued despite the breakaway eastern churches, just as it did during the Reformation.

Even during the schism from 1378 to 1415, the line of true popes continued. Despite the fact that at some points their there two other “popes” claiming the chair this does not invalidate the line of succession. Even today we have people in Montana who claim to be the true pope. We can determine the true pope by examining the validity of his election.

It seems to me that any hypothetical true religion with a loving creator has got to have adequate divine guidance. If this being loves us and gives us religion, then we must be given an adequate way of knowing what our creator wishes to reveal. Since I believe this, I can examine religions in regard to this requirement.

The Catholic Church seems to have acceptable divine guidance. It claims an absolute God-given authority to interpret scripture and teach for Him. This authority has not ceased to exist, and thus we are given guidance of things that develop that did not exist before, like stem-cell research. God raises up men to teach what He desires and He protects them from error in certain circumstances. Throughout all the history that we know, the Church has remained consistent in its teachings when it claims to be infallible. Clergy and Popes have taught error, but this teaching never fit the preexisting requirments for infallability. People have broke away from the church, but the church centered in Rome does not seem to have changed in regards to doctrine (other than conclusively defining uncertain theories, which only add to the body of revealed truth and are consistent with preexisting doctrine)

Protestantism is a little different. Sola Scriptura adherents believe that God gave his people a book and each person the authority to interpret it. This has two main problems. First, a book cannot give us direct teaching in regards to new developments, like stem-cell research. Second, despite the fact that people are given the grace to properly interpret scripture, there are now thousands of different protestant churches, each teaching different things. It seems that this gift of interpretation is either being ignored or not given to everyone.

Other religions claim divine guidance similar to Catholicism. For example, the Mormons believe in living prophets who guide their church. This seems sufficient. Of course, we can examine their religion on other fronts too.

Personally, I just don’t think that sola scriptura is adequate guidance for finding truth. This doesn’t prove Catholicism, but it seems to me to disprove Protestantism

 

[HailMary]

Sorry Mary, but “the church,” the Body of Christ, is not the Magisterium of the RCC.

Never has been, never will be.

…

The Magisterium is part of the Church Christ established, not your local bible study at star bucks.

 

[HailMary]

Sorry Mary, but “the church,” the Body of Christ, is not the Magisterium of the RCC.

Never has been, never will be.

…

not to mention, your debt to the Catholic Church.