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

[PC_Master]

May I be refreshed about this thread. When can it really be said that an authority is a circular argument? What are the elements in order for an authority to be considered a circular argument?

To clarify, the original point was that having the RCC as an authority is a circular argument. Essentially, what happens is that your ultimate authority, whatever it is, must be self-authorizing. However, everything under that authority should be logically defensible based on actions or words of the ultimate authority. In my case, my ultimate authority is God, because “God says so” (basically). God authorizes himself as the authority – I didn’t, and I can’t show you another higher authority which authorizes him.

Now, in the Roman Catholic argument, presumably, God should also be the ultimate authority, so again we simply must accept this. However, the authority of the RCC itself should be fully and logically defensible without appealing to the words of the RCC herself. In other words, based on God, Christ, the apostles, and scripture – things which existed prior to the RCC, we should be able to establish, very clearly and concisely, the authority of the RCC without appealing to the RCC for any interpretation of scripture or early church history. If we have to appeal to the RCC to interpret scripture, then essentially the RCC becomes self-authorizing, and thus is the ultimate authority.

The answer is that the only way a Christian can test the faithfulness of any post-Apostolic teaching/practice/etc… is to compare it to the original source. Even Catholicism recognizes this meanwhile (illogically) rejecting sola scriptura. The CC says, “Scripture alone is not our authority. It is Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magesterium - LOOK, it is right here in the Bible!”

I’d like to make a distinction – Sola Scriptura as it’s taught these days is the teaching that scripture alone is not only sufficient for our faith, but is required to be the only source, explicitly excluding everything else. This is incorrect – however, our earliest Christian writings, which includes the volumes in scripture, should be considered as an accurate picture of the faith of the apostles and those who came directly after them. We can and should assume that this faith lacked nothing of importance, and thus we can model ourselves after this without fear of being in error.

Thus, as you said Joy, everything that comes after should be tested against the earliest church history, to see if it matches up. If it doesn’t, something’s probably wrong.

The title of this thread does not speak it that way. If that is what you meant, then I guess the title of this thread should be revised to express what you meant.

It seems clear enough to me, and Joy has since clarified it, so I don’t see the problem.

Something is not accurate here.For the Church in truth does not use the Bible as their first authority. In other words, the authority of the Church did not come from the Bible. The Bible simply bear witness to that authority, it is not the source of Church authority.

So then, what is the source that authorizes the RCC? Please establish that the RCC, as it exists now, was authorized by Christ directly. Please establish where Christ taught that the successors of Peter would be leaders of his church. My guess is you’ll have to appeal to RCC interpretation of scripture at some point, thus making the RCC self-authorizing, at least to a degree.

Actually, what you call post-Apostolic writings do not contradict the bible but instead help in understanding the bible. By that, I do not see how the word “circular” would find a place here.

Some of them do contradict scripture, and are thus considered heretical. Many support scripture, but contradict modern Roman Catholic teaching, and so they are reinterpreted, or simply ignored, in apologetics.

 

[pneuma07]

Dear Joy,

    first of all I'd say we are all on a journey, as you are. :)

Yours is maybe simply more manifest than other ones, since it takes place at fast speed and on the borders of Catholicism, crossing them apparently twice in a few months.

Now, my first observations on your refutation of yourself.

The ECF writings could be saturated with Catholic thought and I would still question the orthodoxy of them based on the contradiction of Scripture and Our Lord’s promise of heresy

If you mean “contradiction with my interpretations of Scripture”,
we’re back to making it the sole criterion. why sholud I bet on my interpretation against the Fathers ?
I agree they have to be interpreted in their turn. About which, should I bet on my personal interpretation against that of the Church who honored them calling them Fathers ( which is the only reason why you and me are calling them like this), and whom they would honor considering themselves her children ( unless you show what they used to call “catholic church” in IV or V century was extremely different from what we call that today, and maybe, specifically, neared to another modern denomination, namely the mennonites)

*No, it is not an assumption b/c the Scripture is clear evidence that it all ended with the apostles *or at least, very gradually went astray. It takes far more assumption to conclude that the church went on without error.
The editing of Scripture you read today itself did not end with the Apostles ( some of the 27 book were likely edited well into the II century) !

• But what would have been the purpose of recording only SOME of it unless at least what was recorded was sufficient for our salvation and ongoing faithfulness?

Each of the authors just gave us one or some books. Who could imagine his own writnings were sufficient in themselves ? Was the author of Hebrews persuaded his book was sufficient for our salvation ?

** *Actually, it is likewise an assumption that it is NOT sufficient, and if it is not, it begs the question: WHY NOT? And: DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? *

Do you mean materially sufficient, or *formally *sufficient ?

*No, there certainly were NT Scriptures in circulation at that time, and we know that they were already considered Scripture (without a council to proclaim it so). *
When were those verses written ?

• Like I’ve said before, people are just as prone to err in their following Catholicism as they are in their following the Bible. The problem is the same today as it was when Jesus walked the earth and people misunderstood HIM! If we want the truth we need to strip away the layers of muck that prevent us from understanding it. We need the proper disposition; to make our hearts right.*

I agree people can misunderstand the Church as well as Scripture. You’ll agree that the Church can correct the misunderstandings herself.

 

[pneuma07]

Scripture also says that the Word of God gives light to the simple. Indeed the simple in Jesus’ day understood Him w/out an interpreter! Maybe we should seek to be simple instead of learned. Afterall, unless you are like a little child…

 

[PC_Master]

Assuming for a moment that you’re right, pneuma, and that scripture itself (or rather, more correctly, the written Christian works of the first century or two) is insufficient, the question becomes this – how do we determine what else is necessary? Many individuals and/or groups over the centuries have tried to add teachings to that found in scripture – some you would call valid (the RCC’s additions/expansions/clarifications/whatever-you-call-them for example), while you would undoubtedly call others heretical (montanism, arianism, sola fide, sola scriptura, etc). The question is, by what criteria do you determine this?

When the RCC says it is the supreme interpreter and arbiter of true Christianity, how do you know this is so, without appealing to the interpretations and doctrines established by the RCC many, many centuries after Christ? And if you must appeal to the RCC to validate the RCC as the one true church, doesn’t that make it self-authorizing, and thus make it your ultimate authority, rather than Christ? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way.)

Sure, the RCC says the pope is (and has always been) infallible, but where do we see that in the third century…how about the second century? What about the first century? How about with the original apostles? Where did Peter infallibly proclaim something, with others acknowledging that this teaching was correct, not because the holy spirit had guided them to believe it, but because Peter was blessed with the gift of infallibility?

The RCC says mortal sins separate you from God, and yet scripture states that all have sinned, and thus have fallen short of God’s glory. The RCC says that being a member of the RCC is required for salvation (at least, according to some Roman Catholics I’ve heard talk about it), yet scripture says that whoever believes in Christ will be saved.

Scripture (and the earliest of church writings) show no papal authority – no one person acted as supreme pontiff over the whole church. Clearly there were men of repute, whose spiritual guidance was welcomed, such as Paul and probably all of the other apostles. Paul himself wrote that men being of repute (or having authority) is of no matter to God.

Jesus said that he who wishes to be greatest should serve. The RCC says the pope does this by praying, and shepherding the church. But what did Jesus really mean? Well, I’d say his actions speak volumes – he got down on his hands and knees and washed the feet of his disciples…those who were following and learning from him. He was supposed to be the teacher, the rabbi, the respected one, and most certainly he was the greatest man to ever walk the face of the earth…and yet his idea of being the greatest was to wash the feet of others, to truly be a servant…to give up his life for the salvation of the world.

Now, I know you want to defend the RCC at this point, but can you really tell me that the modern-day RCC is anything like the apostolic church? Perhaps you’d say they had liturgies and confession and this practice and that practice…but the essence of the faith…was it really the same? I have yet to hear a competent argument to this point, and I look forward to what you have to say on the matter.

Let’s use the apostolic church as our measuring-rod for determining if the RCC (and/or other denominations) has it right.

 

[Mickey]

Sure, the RCC says the pope is (and has always been) infallible, but where do we see that in the third century

We don’t.

how about the second century?

We don’t see it there either.

What about the first century?

Nope.

 

[mlchance]

And here’s the problem – the Protestant model, and the Biblical model, don’t speak of that – they focus on unity of belief with the truth among each individual believer, whether they’re Jew or Gentile, etc.

Putting aside the extremely arguable assertion that conflates the Protestant model and the Biblical model, your statement about the Protestant model focusing on unity of belief brings up a very pointed question: Since for very nearly every single so-called Protestant belief one can find another Protestant belief that says the opposite, where is this unity of belief?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

PCM:

Joy – you seem to be on somewhat of a roller-coaster lately in terms of what you believe. Please know that you’ll be in my prayers. Just keep seeking the truth and you’ll find it.

Thanks for prayers. Yes, it has been a rollercoaster - for years. Thankfully I think I’m getting past the dizziness it has caused. Feeling much more convicted now.

since it takes place at fast speed and on the borders of Catholicism, crossing them apparently twice in a few months.

About 4 times a year for 3-4 years

If you mean “contradiction with my interpretations of Scripture”,
we’re back to making it the sole criterion. why sholud I bet on my interpretation against the Fathers ?

Firstly, you cannot escape your own judgment (interpretation). You must also interpret the ECF. You had to evaluate the CC claims as well at some point. I know there are various and conflicting interpretations, but that is because of the individual - not b/c one hasn’t trusted a supposed infallible authority (which would need to be determined with one’s fallible judgment also).

against that of the Church who honored them calling them Fathers ( which is the only reason why you and me are calling them like this), and whom they would honor considering themselves her children ( unless you show…

It doesn’t matter to me what they are called or who first called them that. Having been Catholic all my life that is what I call them and I realize that that is what Catholics commonly call them.

what they used to call “catholic church” in IV or V century was extremely different from what we call that today, and maybe, specifically, neared to another modern denomination, namely the mennonites)

I’m not sure what you are asking here. Maybe reword it? Or is it a hypothetical question?

The editing of Scripture you read today itself did not end with the Apostles ( some of the 27 book were likely edited well into the II century) !

As stated much earlier in this thread - I have chosen to put my faith in the bible for many reasons - none of them having to do with the men who edited it etc… I see irrefutable evidence of God’s divine hand in the Scriptures, and from there I trust He has preserved that word using whatever means He preferred. God has used many incredible people to bring about His will, and many of them did not remain faithful.

Each of the authors just gave us one or some books. Who could imagine his own writnings were sufficient in themselves ? Was the author of Hebrews persuaded his book was sufficient for our salvation ? Did they have to see the whole plan of God for it to be so?

Do you mean materially sufficient, or *formally *sufficient ?

I’ve already answered that argument in one of these recent posts. I don’t have time to find it at the moment. Quick answer is that it is formally sufficient and the only real insufficiency is in the individual - not b/c of ignorance necessarily, but b/c of disposition.

*No, there certainly were NT Scriptures in circulation at that time, and we know that they were already considered Scripture (without a council to proclaim it so). *
When were those verses written ?

Again, I don’t have time to cite everything, but I believe Peter said Paul’s writings were Scripture (as an example). It is clear that Paul considered certain of his writings inspired.

I agree people can misunderstand the Church as well as Scripture. You’ll agree that the Church can correct the misunderstandings herself.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. How can the church do such a thing? Can a church make people believe something?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I’m not avoiding answering the other posts - I will have to continue this tomorrow.

How do you guys keep up with this board? It takes me an hour just to make 1 post!

Blessings~

 

[PC_Master]

Putting aside the extremely arguable assertion that conflates the Protestant model and the Biblical model, your statement about the Protestant model focusing on unity of belief brings up a very pointed question: Since for very nearly every single so-called Protestant belief one can find another Protestant belief that says the opposite, where is this unity of belief?

Where did I say all Protestant teachings are the same? Where did I say Protestantism as a whole has absolute and total unity? Where did I say that all members of the true church have complete unity?

I’ve not said any of those things, nor do I believe they are true. And to apply such a standard to Protestantism does no good, because even though it does fail, so does the RCC, as previously demonstrated. So we’re left with two systems, both of which fail in regards to unity. We’ve established nothing then.

But if you would, can you please tell me what areas of “unity” are important, and why they are so? Is individual belief a part of this consideration? Why or why not? Is unity with the truth important?

I’m not avoiding answering the other posts - I will have to continue this tomorrow.

How do you guys keep up with this board? It takes me an hour just to make 1 post!

The answer, for me, is that I spend time here when I perhaps should be doing other things. On the other hand, I also perhaps think and type quickly (in comparison to others). We all make time for what’s important to us, time-consuming or not.

 

[pneuma07]

I agree it can be seen as a comparative issue, but most important in this is what the grounds of comparison would be. No doubt you would say “visible organization”, “a visible central authority” and “a visible teaching body” are criteria for this comparison. And here’s the problem – the Protestant model, and the Biblical model, …leadership.

 

[pneuma07]

Dear Joy,

Firstly, you cannot escape your own judgment (interpretation). You must also interpret the ECF.

and the only real insufficiency is in the individual - not b/c of ignorance necessarily, but b/c of disposition.] In other words you seem to believe in perspicuity. Am I correct ?
How do we know who has the right disposition ?

COLOR=black] Again, I don’t have time to cite everything, but I believe Peter said Paul’s writings were Scripture

(as an example). It is clear that Paul considered certain of his writings inspired…

You mean when Scripture tells us Scripture is difficult and self-interpretation can be very dangerous. ( 2 Peter 3). You know
2 Peter is not generally regarded as by …Peter, being considered a much later work.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. How can the church do such a thing? Can a church make people believe something?

The Church can deliver the message. Being a living informant, she can correct our misinterpretations of the message. Repeatedly, if necessary. Whether people believe it’s up to the Holy Spirit abd themselves, I guess.
A text cannot do that. We can master it, leading it where we please. Because it cannot give us any feedback.

Blessings.

[/QUOTE]

 

[mlchance]

Where did Peter infallibly proclaim something, with others acknowledging that this teaching was correct, not because the holy spirit had guided them to believe it, but because Peter was blessed with the gift of infallibility?

Why do you continue to misrepresent the doctrine of infallibility by speaking of it as if it exists separate from the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[planter654]

Where have you seen anything in faithful Catholic teaching that says that we cannot?

The reason that you have this problem is probably because you are still thinking with a Sola Scriptura mindset. SS is dead wrong according to the Word of God and is an errant teaching of men. 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, yet I am constantly distressed with those n-C preachers and teachers who purport that they can offer a definitive interpretation of even some of the Word of God. (I’m referring here to those who teach things like the Rapture, or hold dispensationalist beliefs, though this could apply to many other beliefs as well.) Most often, instead of giving good interpretations they wander off into things that have very little actual basis in the passages they are teaching from.

In my mind, the whole issue of authority is laid to rest when Our Lord tells us to take an errant brother before the church if he remains unrepentant, as does St. Paul and especially when he tells Timothy that the pillar and ground of the truth is the church. 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. That succession and faithfulness is a matter of historically verifiable fact as the writings of the ECF show. 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.

It’s not just the Church’s teaching on infallibility that convinces me but the myriad fruits of the fundamental error of n-C teachings that bear witness against them.

I do not like it when someone bashes others on the site and tell God’s children their Protestant, non Catholic, accuse them of heresey, any name calling is unacceptable!

Has the CC been faithful to God’s word and commands?
Is the CC perfect and without blemishes?
What is the CC teaching that no one can go to heaven except through the Catholic Church?
Please give me the CC meaning of what " authority" means to them?
Can the CC tell me the exact date, that Peter handed them the keys and to whom, what was his name, who was all present, why Rome did such a thing etc?
Where was Peter crucified, who was present from the CC at that time of Peters crucifixtion to hand the keys to CC?
Is there a witness or testimony or name writtten in the gospels that say this?
Was this a prophecy fortold in the Bible about the keys by the Holy prophets or Jesus?
ST. Paul was he not held in prision in Rome, for many years?
When ST. Peter was crucified was St. Paul still alive in prison in Rome?
How many keys were on the ring that Peter handed over, to whom present, who hear this is it recorded, is there proof of this written from the apostles themselves?
Why did God choose Fri for the crucifixtion instead of Tues?
Are we to worship the CC and believe every word they say first, then God?
Or does God have the authority over the Catholic Church?
When we say the CC is infallibility, are you saying CC will not need to stand before God in the final judgement?
Are you saying the only children of God that will be in heaven will only be Catholics?
Can the Catholic Church tell me the exact time then when, Jesus rose from the dead and why 3 days before Jesus rose, why not instead only 2 days?
Can the CC tell me where exactly Jesus went for many years till he started his ministry not till the age of 30?
When God made the new convenate God promised us, we would need no one to teach us, he would place his law to know him in our hearts, God would teach us. Are you saying God is a liar?
Can you tell me why God did not send Jesus first instead of Moses?
Can you tell me why God created all things in 6 days and not in 10 days?

I am not being smart, nor made to feel guilty to questions I am truly concerned with, so I ask, but we were all created by God were we not?
Who dare stand before God and question him?
Or who dare can say they know the “thoughts” of God?
Or who dare judge anyone that God has created, who made you master over his servants?
Are we not all God’s creation and his servants?

If someone offers you a gospel other than the one we preach and have bore witness to, do not accept them!

God Bless… I trust in God only, and pray for all of God’s children, our church,Pope, our priest and our whole family through out all nations and our enemies whom I love and pray for.

 

[planter654]

I give, praise, glory and thanks giving to God for his graces bestowed upon me always and for the Catholic Church, his servants which has given me the wisdom to know God and the building of my faith.

We all have a purpose to serve others as Jesus has served us. Not to bash others or call names, or judge others etc. Our actions and words that roll off our tongues, tell us and others who we serve, whom do we truly worship and love.

God Bless…for the sun of God shines on the good and bad!

 

[planter654]

When Barnabas went into the temple to tell Jesus to do something about all the thousands of Christians who were being killed and crucified for their faith in God. What did Jesus say to Barnabas…Jesus told him " Far better for YOU if YOU pray for them!

God Bless

 

[planter654]

“Catholic” It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Rom. 1:8….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures. I challenge any Protestant to show me any inferences to the name of their church in the Bible with the same convincing evidence.

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D., Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.

“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.” Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D**.**

The word “Catholic”, its name was given on to itself by men. Well thought out I am sure! God Bless God’s name means… eternal, forever and forever, immortal… The Great I AM

 

[planter654]

It is not the authority that is circular, it is how we determine the authority that is circular.

If the authority is Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium, how do you show this? Catholics will start with the earliest Christian records (as they should), that is, the Scriptures. So they turn to the Scriptures as the most original authoritative source. IOW, they use the Bible as their first authority. The only way we can know the faithfulness of the post-Apostolic writings, teachings and traditions is to compare them to this earliest, most original source. Oddly, Catholics don’t see the contradictions of the Catholic faith when compared to Scripture, so they will consider the post-Apostolic writings, teachings and traditions to be a continuation of the original, Apostolic faith of the Bible.

I think the problem is that the way in which Scripture is treated in Catholic apologetics is such that it is one aspect of the Christian faith - setting aside tradition and magesterium as seperate entities, when in actuality all three are contained in Scripture (historically, of course - but it LIVES in Christianity in practice for all time). We see the church acting authoritatively in Scripture (magesterium). We see Apostolic tradition in action (sacred tradition). This is not to say that the modern Christian church cannot guide the faithful in matters of faith and morals - indeed it should! But let that guidance be rooted in the fullness of God’s revelation as we have it in Scripture. I think the Catholic church has done fairly well in this regard, but certainly not perfectly or infallibly. I definately see some contradictions as well as omitions - but it is faithful in some very controvercial issues. So, Scripture can be seen in a historical light, but it is at the same time the living word of God b/c it contains all the essential elements for our salvation in every age. And although it can be seen as the historical church (that of the Bible) it is also a living church so long as there are those who remain faithful to the same teachings and practices the first Christians held to. “Hold fast…”

Anyway, I’m carrying on and getting away from the original question again.

The answer is that the only way a Christian can test the faithfulness of any post-Apostolic teaching/practice/etc… is to compare it to the original source. Even Catholicism recognizes this meanwhile (illogically) rejecting sola scriptura. The CC says, “Scripture alone is not our authority. It is Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magesterium - LOOK, it is right here in the Bible!”

Peace,

I agree with you. “If anyone teaches you another gospel other than the one we preach and have bore witness to do not accept it”!

----------------This is taken from Pope Benedict-- XV1-------------------------------------Joseph Ratzinger Book " Jesus of Nazareth-------------------
-----------His personal search for the face of the LORD-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Pope wrote:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me so wills ( Jn 6:44) But whom does the Father will? Not “the wise and understanding”< the Lord tells us, but the " SIMPLE".

Taken in the most straightforward sense, these words reflect Jesus actual experience: It is not the “Scripture experts” those who are professionally concerned with God, who recognize him: They are too caught up in the intricacies of their detailed knowledge, Their great learning distracts them from " SIMPLY" gazing upon the whole, upon the reality of God as he reveals himself-----------for people who know so much about the complexity of the issues, it seems that it just cannot be so “SIMPLE” A must read.

God Bless

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Dear Joy,
JoyToBeCatholic;3461870:

What I hardly follow is why so many brothers appear to be concerned about this only about the Catholic Church and her claims.

I don’t understand it either. If I were a former “fill in the denomination” I would talk with them about my concerns. I see the same errors with “bible Christians” (most anyway)

Or does the argument about our own infallibility say something just about any source we come to consider as reliable (inerrant, infallible),

As I have often said - I have chosen to put my faith in the Bible (just as you have) b/c I see many logical reasons to believe God’s divine hand was responsible for it’s production. Certainly He is capable of preserving it using whatever means or people He chooses without it making the means or people infallible in all other things. I can pose this same question to you, b/c you have used your fallible judgment to believe the CC is divine.

you and I respect those early christian authors because they have been respected along the centuries by the Catholic Church

but not just the CC…

in your protestant periods as well as when within the Church, you, as so many protestant brothers, do receive much more from catholic Tradition than we are generally aware of.

No, I do not place my faith in the ECF. They are respected historical writings and nothing more IMO. The CC sees errors in some of their writings. I had to admit that the only way I would know which of their writings were orthodox and which were erroneous was to compare it to something closer to the origins of the faith: Scripture (not believing I should blindly believe the CC interpretation).

Augustine…Was the church he means something similar to the present CC, or rather to a given denomination ?

What is more important is what the church was like in the time of the Apostles as depicted in Scripture, and no, I do not see a similarity to the present CC but an incredible similarity to many anabaptist faiths.

he was a child of the catholic Church, before and besides being one of her later acknowledged fathers. This contributes to make it harder for me to believe I interpret Augustine by myself better than the Church does.

That is b/c you somehow have determined that the better way to interpret the ECF is to compare them to the present CC instead of comparing them to the earliest, Apostolic church. I have no idea why you would see that as a more sure way to know truth. You clearly use Catholic lenses through which to interpret the ECF, thus validating Catholic teaching using the CC as a reference? See the circularity?Moreover, If I am trying to verify the authenticity of the claims of the Mormon church I don’t compare the ECF to Mormon beliefs b/c the ECF writings do not have the same level of authority as the writings of the Apostles(Bible).

when was the Catholic Church born ?

Personally, I think it went astray when it frist began to formally define specific doctrines and dogmas “infallibly”. If you don’t believe, you are “anathema!”. Prior to this there certainly were varying opinions on those matters and therefore an openness to orthodox beliefs present in the church. After such bold proclamations though, those who disagreed were excommunicated (and many killed) - driving the orthodoxed beliefs and practices underground (& very unpopular).

I see irrefutable evidence of God’s divine hand in the Scriptures

,
What means did God prefer to preserve Scripture for us ? He used people, but He also used David for example but he didn’t remain faithful. God promised to preserve His Word. I trust Him. Not all things can be proven - I have chosen to put my faith in what I believe is reliable - and so have you. Before you decided for yourself to be Catholic (or remain Catholic) you had to determine, first of all, that there was even a worthwhile reason to be a Christian! You can say it was b/c of the CC, but many people come to it w/out a denominational bias.

How do we know who has the right disposition ?

I suppose we can’t know for sure anymore than we can know anything else. It is a lifelong task to work at stripping away self and societal conditioning. Jesus does though clearly demonstrate some of the qualities of this disposition: contrition, humility, etc… Scripture depicts many instances of people who displayed the right dispositions and people who did not. He tell us what the obstacles are: ego, pride, greed, etc… As the Holy Spirit works in our lives He reveals those obstacles so that (hopefully) we will abandon them and be better prepared to understand more lofty concepts revealed by God. But it didn’t take great intelligence to understand the basic salvatory teaching of Christ. Many “simple” and unlearned people were saved in Jesus’ day - probably b/c they were just that: simple. It doesn’t take higher learning to recognize God and therefore realize our personal condition in comparison. Once one recognizes God and His holiness, he is well aware of the gulf that seperates him from God (unless he has an elevated view of self - which is often the case, sadly). This alone is sufficient to produce the proper disposition. Take man’s philosophy and clever argumentation out of the equation and focus on knowing God and self and there you have it (not talking to you in particular ).

Do you think those who opposed Jesus did so b/c they simply misunderstood? Or did they perhaps lack something deeper?

Peace~

 

[PC_Master]

I do not even know whether we can speak about a “Protestant model” , as a singular one. About the “Biblical model”, that is precisely what we were exploring together in December.

I know of no Protestant denomination which claims exclusivity to “one true church” membership. They all accept that those in other denominations can end up in heaven without ending up in their denomination. Eastern Orthodoxy and a few of the others, I don’t know about for certain, as I haven’t yet studied them in enough detail to competently speak about them.

I guess it depends what the model includes. If we boil it down to the core of things, the requirement for salvation is faith (and willful desire) to follow Christ and his teachings. (Scripture says that you must “believe in” Christ – if you believe in him, surely you must believe what he says – otherwise he’s a liar and you wouldn’t believe “in” him.) Other criteria could be added, but I haven’t seen many, if any, Protestant denominations which said that communion, confession, obedience to a pope or other central leader (aside from Christ, of course) was necessary to enter heaven. But if you’d like to tell me where I’m wrong on that, feel free.

Now, if you define the “invisible church” more or less as “the most faithful to Christ’s message all over the world”, you have certainly a set which shares something fundamental whithin itself.

To be faithful to Christ is to be Christian. The more faithful, the more Christ-like you are.

The problem is you get this … just by your definition itself.

No – the definition is simply an explanation of how things are. You’re looking for a definition by which you can ascertain which people are Christian, and which are not. You want to quantify it in an earthly fashion. What makes you think that we’re supposed to be doing that?

And I do not even know whom your definition includes…Now: I can tell in principle you who is catholic among the posters of this thread.

No, you can’t. I’ve heard many times on this forum and elsewhere that there are members of the “one true church” who don’t accept the RCC as valid. There are also members of the RCC, who are not true believers, and thus not members of the “one true church”. Clearly, you can’t even quantify it in your own belief system. You can provide a set of criteria, perhaps, but since you don’t know the mind of the individual, you can’t ever truly know if someone really believes or not. (I’m pretty sure theres RCC documents that indicate this point.)

Can you tell me who is member of the invisible church among us posters here, and why ?

No, I can’t. If I know a person well, I can attempt to come to an understanding of what they believe, and make an educated guess – but that’s all it is…a guess. I am not God, and I don’t know the hearts and minds of others.

The difference is that the catholic principle is in itself a source of unity ( whose effects are insufficient for a number of motivations). The protestant principle, the opposite.

The result is (visible) disunity, so why does it matter what the principle is? You’re essentially arguing that “if everyone followed the doctrines of their denomination perfectly, the RCC would be the best”. I might even agree with this (if those doctrines were in line with truth)…but it’s not reality.

Agreed that a single priest (or even a single bishop) can teach sometimes something which is not really correct or orthodox.

You said “not really correct or orthodox” – to clarify, you mean that sometimes a priest or bishop can teach in error, contradicting RCC teaching, right?

But you know in principle how to get that corrected ( and whether it is really to be corrected).

In principle, perhaps – but principle is not enough. If the goal is unity, then it must be happening in reality – this source of unity must be actively and completely removing traces of disunity. Clearly, in the RCC, they always have, and still do exist.

In principle, Protestants could all listen to the holy spirit with full open-mindedness, and thus receive the same truth, and thus be in perfect unity. In principle, it works. In reality, like the RCC’s teaching magisterium, it doesn’t.

About the Coucils: you give the direction there. You debate and then decide. Shouldn’t they debate at all ? Then why a Council ?

Exactly. The need for a council is a demonstration of disunity of large effect. If one person had disagreed about the need for circumcision, Paul wouldn’t have traveled to Jerusalem about it. Clearly, it was much more wide-spread than one or two men.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Once decided, the direction is given for everybody.

Direction given, perhaps. Direction followed…not likely. I doubt the anti-infallibility guys at V1 suddenly changed their minds after the council voted on the matter and immediately believed in papal infallibility. So, giving single direction is a sign of hierarchy and of authority…but not of unity.

I respectfully consider that there isn’t any agreement on the Lord’s Supper. Tell me, have you ever debated Real Presence with a lutheran brother ? In general, the range of teachings appears really wide.

There are about 3 teachings I know of on the subject:
Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and symbolism. It’s not that hard, and I’ve heard all 3 of those positions espoused by different Roman Catholics over the years…including, recently, an Eastern-Rite fellow who switched from Eastern Orthodoxy.

Surely, you’re not saying that Protestants need to be more united than the RCC itself is, right?

But they are not in the mindset: “Listen, that is not Christ’s message. The Church got it completely wrong. But I do know what the real message is. You see, scripture clearly states here…and here…”.

Every negative belief can also be phrased affirmatively – it’s not just “I don’t believe in transubstantiation” – it’s actually “I believe that the bread and wine is not really Christ’s body and blood” and thus by extension, if they know the RCC teaches transubstantiation, they’re implicitly saying the RCC is wrong on that issue. Whether the reason is “scripture says otherwise” or just “my senses say otherwise”, it doesn’t matter – disbelief is still disbelief. It’s intentional, and explicit.

I never deny self is involved. What should concern is not making it our real alpha and omega. On the action of the Holy Spirit our dialogue was going on in December.

You argue then, that Protestants do make self all-important. I’d have to say that you just have a poor understanding of the concept of divine revelation in the Protestant mindset. We’re not focusing on ourselves – we focus on God and try to hear and obey what he says to us.

Likewise, you believe that when the RCC speaks, it is thinking of the word of God, and not of itself. When you obey, you believe you’re obeying God’s will, not the RCC’s will. When you interpret the words of the RCC in cases of ambiguity, you believe you’re simply trying to understand the teaching – you don’t believe that you’re focusing on yourself…and neither do Protestants.

If so, then you’re showing catholicism is a much better realization of Christianity then situations where disagreemnt is, on the contrary, a direct product of the founding principle.

Not really. I think you don’t understand the “founding principle” as you call it. You’re arguing as though the revelation to each believer must result in relative truth. This is not so – there is absolute truth. We only misunderstand and misinterpret this because we’re human and thus fallible beings.

I have already agreed that we have always to start with or from our own very fallible exploration. What I hardly follow is why so many brothers appear to be concerned about this only about the Catholic Church and her claims.

Some are misguided (believing that the current RCC is completely of satan or some such), and their zeal for God gets misdirected. Others, like me, are accused of constantly “going after” the RCC, when in reality, I study a variety of faiths – it’s just that I’m not going to post about those here. I’m going to post about the RCC here, because that’s what this forum is about. Here, you should expect to see a lot of people focusing on the RCC.

Where they infallible, when they decided that the 27 books of the NT are Word of God ?

You’re assuming “they” and the current-day RCC are the same thing, so that if someone accepts the accuracy of the NT canon, they’re granting the infallibility of that council, and thus somehow the entire RCC. But this is quite flawed, as there have been many church splits since that time, and thus any one of the resulting denominations can make that claim of infallibility – unfortunately at least all but one of them has to be wrong.

Leaving terminology aside, you and I respect those early christian authors because they have been respected along the centuries by the Catholic Church.

I can’t speak for Joy, but I respect who I respect because of how God used them (most frequently in their writing). Whether the RCC recognizes them or not is inconsequential to me, though I will admit, it’s sometimes difficult to locate material by authors not recognized and endorsed by the RCC.

Augustine, for example, states loudly his obedience and trust towards the catholic Church. Was the church he means something similar to the present CC, or rather to a given denomination ?

“The Catholic Church” (that is, The Universal [Christian] Church) is a valid name for the so-called “invisible church”.

BTW when was the Catholic Church born ?

Short answer: Over a period of centuries Rome fell into error. There is no specific date where we can suddenly see the heresies appear (nor is there ever such an exact and sudden date for heresies).

Continued…