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

[Dauphin]

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

The fundamental reality and substance of the Eucharist is not mutually exclusive with a symbolic and spiritual understanding. You see passages that seem to give the Eucharist an obviously spiritual meaning and then you conclude that It isn’t actually the Body and Blood of Christ. In doing this, you fail to recognize that Scripture contains absolute confirmation that the Eucharist has both literal and metaphorical elements. This kind of mistake is precisely why we have a competent authority for the interpretation of scripture.

It’s really shockingly absurd that protestants can hold seriously to the idea that the Eucharist isn’t the Body and Blood of Christ. This view is completely alien to the Bible and the Church of Christ. Previous to the second millenium, you won’t find any evidence of the protestant belief in the Eucharist purely as an ordinance. This sort of nonsense started with Berengarius of Tours and found its culmination in the protestant heresies. Why do you think that all the apostolic churches, the ones that weren’t founded by flawed humans, have a belief in the real presence and in the words of Christ “This is My Body… This is My Blood”?

The key here is that you’ve made yourself the ultimate judge of all truth. You believe that all authority for the authentic interpretation of scripture rests in you. This is evidence of the worst kind of relativism; the kind that says “God does exist, but by golly, He thinks just like I do!”.

Because you refuse to believe that Christ ordained a competent authority to teach His Gospel, you are left only with your own flawed and subjective interpretation.

 

[JJR1453]

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.

The term “Catholic” has its first written use by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the year 110, although Ive seen some date the letter to 107 A.D.

Either way the term, as you have said, was meant to represent the one true Church that Christ started. I would disagree with you that the Church “grew away from its apostolic practices and fell away from God”, which by the way is a bold statement that if brought up and used should be supported by facts. Look to the ECF’s writings and you will see the Catholic Church, or the one true Church, whichever cognomen you prefer.

On a side note, that would be an interesting thread to start. If you feel the Apostolic Church fell away from God in its practices and beliefs perhaps you could start a thread and explain what exactly the Apostolic Church believed and how the Church turned away from these practices as it grew to be the state religion

 

[Mannyfit75]

I like to add the Bible was not written to be a manual for Christians.

 

[HailMary]

I like to add the Bible was not written to be a manual for Christians.

The first Christians did not have a Bible
The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.

The Belief that Scripture is “Self-Authenticating” Does Not Hold Up under Examination

The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.

Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture. (ie: the Holy Eucharist).The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

 

[tdgesq]

There are two ways that we know things: 1) through logical principles and 2) through experience (i.e. the senses). Catholics use both to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church has the authority to define truth infallibly. In my experience, very few Catholics make or find compelling the tautological argument that the Catholic Church has this kind of authority because the Catholic Church says it does. It is significant though that the CC does teach that it has this authority. Why? Because if the institutional teaching authority isn’t even willing to affirm its own authority, then there is some doubt whether it has that authority to begin with.

Looking at the pre-schism Church, it is evident that there were bishops. That they claimed apostolic authority. That they conferred this apostolic authority to others. That in council, beginning with Nicaea, they could define Christian truth and anathemize those (even other bishops) that taught to the contrary. They were not just suggestions that perhaps could be wrong. Councils of bishops claimed, and rightfully so, infallible teaching authority. All pre-schism, for at least the first seven ecumenical councils.

Those on this thread who suggest that this union of bishops didn’t really constitute the Church for the first 1000 years, or that they were wrong to assume infallible teaching authority, need to demonstrate why this is so. To what can they appeal? Scripture?

Well, the amalgamation of writings that we now call the New Testament do not claim to be divinely inspired. Where exactly are we to look to know if everything the author of Hebrews wrote constitutes truth? Maybe we are just supposed to use a circular argument, “I said it’s inspired, so it is inspired.”

 

[PC_Master]

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.

This seems to highlight part of the problem – you believe that the church of Christ that established the Biblical canon was what has become the Roman Catholic Church.

On the other hand, I reject that idea, seeing lots of differences between the two.

“The Holy Spirit told me” just isn’t good enough!

Says you. On the other hand, you also seem to think that the RCC doing things because “the holy spirit guides them to” is just fine.

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

As previously covered, you can’t make the assertion that these passages guarantee infallibility to the church, Roman Catholic or otherwise. History disproves it from the very beginnings of the church. To more correctly phrase things – it’s not just that I am fallible – it’s that every other human being (except for Christ himself) is equally so.

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 list goes on, but the underlying premise is that the RCC was originally existing, and the Bible only came later, and therefore the RCC of today has authority above and beyond that of scripture.

However, this premise is flawed. For it to work, one must establish that the RCC is the same church as the apostolic church, which is what leads us back into the circular argument, because there’s no external source by which we can validate the claim.

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 it, in a nutshell.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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.

And yet, if I ask the Eastern Orthodox, I’m sure they’d tell me that the bishop of Rome was trying to take authority that wasn’t his, and that the schism was quite justified. Indeed they would also probably say that Rome was the one who broke from authority.

Both groups are equally ancient, and both have contradicting views and interpretations on the issue of papal authority. So, which one is right, and how can I tell the difference?

We can determine the true pope by examining the validity of his election.

Because the early church (more particularly, the scriptures they wrote) totally said future bishops should be elected.

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.

I believe the holy spirit provides me with that guidance. Why isn’t that good enough?

Protestantism is a little different. Sola Scriptura adherents believe that God gave his people a book and each person the authority to interpret it.

No – sola scriptura adherents typically believe that God gave us scripture, and that God will lead each of us into accurate understanding thereof. It’s up to us to listen to what he’s saying. That’s why I believe most “sola scriptura” adherents are actually adherents of a methodology which involves scripture and divine guidance.

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

As previously covered – what’s the point in disproving Protestantism, unless you’re trying to win by attrition.

The term “Catholic” has its first written use by St. Ignatius of Antioch in the year 110, although Ive seen some date the letter to 107 A.D.

Either way the term, as you have said, was meant to represent the one true Church that Christ started.

Absolutely. I tend to call this the Apostolic Church or the post-Apostolic Church.

I would disagree with you that the Church “grew away from its apostolic practices and fell away from God”, which by the way is a bold statement that if brought up and used should be supported by facts. Look to the ECF’s writings and you will see the Catholic Church, or the one true Church, whichever cognomen you prefer.

Oh, I absolutely do see the Catholic Church (that is, the apostolic church), but I don’t see the modern-day Roman Catholic Church. I don’t see the papacy, church infallibility, or anything of the kind. We don’t see the “council of Jerusalem” saying “do these things, or be anathema!”

But, let’s say we disagree here. If I claim that the RCC has fallen away from the practices of the true faith as found in the Apostolic Church, and you doubt it, how should we resolve the dispute? We obviously can’t trust the word of the RCC, or of intentionally anti-RCC folks on the matter, for each is biased. We need an objective, external source. Scripture and the earliest church writings are all that I can see that we might have in that regard.

On a side note, that would be an interesting thread to start. If you feel the Apostolic Church fell away from God in its practices and beliefs perhaps you could start a thread and explain what exactly the Apostolic Church believed and how the Church turned away from these practices as it grew to be the state religion

I’ve seen several of these threads started, and I in fact started one myself – all of them are quickly overrun with zealous posts saying “we know the RCC is the one true church” without any real support or reasoning. If you’d like to open a thread up, however, I’ll be more than happy to participate.

That does seem to be the underlying principle. I think most protestants would have no problem with being a part of the Apostolic Church. The problem is that we don’t believe the RCC accurately represents that church.

 

[Dauphin]

This seems to highlight part of the problem – you believe that the church of Christ that established the Biblical canon was what has become the Roman Catholic Church.

On the other hand, I reject that idea, seeing lots of differences between the two.

The early church believed universally in the apostolic faith. Undeniably, that faith includes belief in the real, objective presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

If the current faith of the Catholic Church is a breach with that of the ancients, then the church has fallen into error and Christ has been proved a liar.

We believe precisely what the apostles did. Have new devotions been added? Has the Holy Spirit gradually molded the liturgy? Yes, but this is an organic development in keeping with the eternal faith of the church.

Says you. On the other hand, you also seem to think that the RCC doing things because “the holy spirit guides them to” is just fine.

Christ promised that the Holy Spirit will guide the church and preserve it from error. He did not promise infallibility to every individual believer; “Just read the Bible and God will make sure you’ll know the truth”. This is a ludicrous doctrine which only became necessary after the protestant “reformers” rejected the legitimate authority of the Church founded by Christ. How many different truths have people “known” by reading the Bible? Some protestants, like “Bishop” Spong, conclude from it that God does not exist. Some, like Mormons, gather that there are three Gods, and see this faith confirmed in the Bible. To what sort of invented Christianity do you adhere? For what sort of perverted gospel do you twist scripture?

An idea like the infallible guidance of every individual believer would have been laughed at in the early church. There is absolutely no question that modern protestantism is completely alien to the genuine Christian faith of the apostles.

 

[tdgesq]

We need an objective, external source. Scripture and the earliest church writings are all that I can see that we might have in that regard.

When you say “Scripture” you already assume that certain books are scriptural - that they constitute the inerrant word of God. As historical documents though most of them do not provide us that information. Where did you learn that? From the ECF’s? I’m sure if Ignatius were alive he would ask you, “where are your bishops,” being the Bishop of Antioch himself. And what exactly were all those bishops doing at Nicaea I in 325 when they started anathemizing Arius and his followers and set up canons for how bishops were to be confirmed by other bishops?

Looks a lot like the Catholic and Orthodox Churches of today. History just doesn’t tell the story your way PCM.

 

[HailMary]

However, this premise is flawed. For it to work, one must establish that the RCC is the same church as the apostolic church, which is what leads us back into the circular argument, because there’s no external source by which we can validate the claim.

The premise is not flawed. An example of a flawed premise is using a bible ,which you claim is inerrant, that was given to you by the Catholic Church and you not accepting the authority that gave it to you!

Your debt is great my friend!

 

[cascherman]

If we can’t infallibly interpret scripture, then we can’t infallibly interpret the earthly authority either.

And we can’t infallibly identify that the Bible is infallible if there is not authority.

So, maybe say the infallibility of the Bible is circular reasoning as well. Really, how can we know the Bible is infallible? Well, we have been told so, by authority. Seems to me maybe Christianity for us in the 21st century is all circular reasoning with a massive basis coming from faith. So if you want solid hardcore facts, then maybe Christianity can’t supply that for you. We have a ton of evidence, but really very few solid facts that everyone will agree on, such as… the Earth is round.

Maybe this sort of thinking is what makes atheists.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Btw - my post # 24 inserted a winky smile in the middle of the scripture for Colossians - I have no idea why - and I can’t edit it now.

K, back to work…

 

[HailMary]

Btw - my post # 24 inserted a winky smile in the middle of the scripture for Colossians - I have no idea why - and I can’t edit it now.

K, back to work…

You are allowed to edit your posts for about 5 or 10 minutes after you post.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

And we can’t infallibly identify that the Bible is infallible if there is not authority.

So, maybe say the infallibility of the Bible is circular reasoning as well. Really, how can we know the Bible is infallible? Well, we have been told so, by authority. Seems to me maybe Christianity for us in the 21st century is all circular reasoning with a massive basis coming from faith. So if you want solid hardcore facts, then maybe Christianity can’t supply that for you. We have a ton of evidence, but really very few solid facts that everyone will agree on, such as… the Earth is round.

Maybe this sort of thinking is what makes atheists.

I already answered tha in a previous post. I explained why I, personally, believe the Bible to be inspired and it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church except the it, and the other upteen thousand Christian denominations, see it as authoritative as well. I think any religion that has changed the world like Christianity has is well worth looking at. And yes, I’ve looked, extensively, at other world religions. I know why I believe in Jesus and the Bible and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the CC except that like me, and every other Christian, the CC recognizes it as inspired.

Peace

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

You are allowed to edit your posts for about 5 or 10 minutes after you post.

I know, and i did check it before I submitted, but I missed it…

 

[cascherman]

I believe the holy spirit provides me with that guidance. Why isn’t that good enough?

And I believe the Holy Spirit has guided me to my faith! Well one of us is wrong, does that mean the Holy Spirit contradicted himself and guided us both separate ways?

Personally, I doubt that… really really doubt that.

 

[cascherman]

I already answered tha in a previous post. I explained why I, personally, believe the Bible to be inspired and it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church except the it, and the other upteen thousand Christian denominations, see it as authoritative as well. I think any religion that has changed the world like Christianity has is well worth looking at. And yes, I’ve looked, extensively, at other world religions. I know why I believe in Jesus and the Bible and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the CC except that like me, and every other Christian, the CC recognizes it as inspired.

Peace

Sorry for making you repost that

But really, the fact that all other Christians accept the Bible as infallible means very little. That, in and of itself is not proof, and is more circular reasoning…

There is no solid fact in that argument that says the Bible is infallible, after all, every single Christian is fallible, so we could all be wrong.

 

[cascherman]

just out of curiosity…

your name would make me think you are Catholic… how come you aren’t and have that name? (not that it is not okay, just interested)

 

[HailMary]

I already answered tha in a previous post. I explained why I, personally, believe the Bible to be inspired and it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church except the it, and the other upteen thousand Christian denominations, see it as authoritative as well. I think any religion that has changed the world like Christianity has is well worth looking at. And yes, I’ve looked, extensively, at other world religions. I know why I believe in Jesus and the Bible and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the CC except that like me, and every other Christian, the CC recognizes it as inspired.

Peace

The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa

 

[Sarpedon]

And yet, if I ask the Eastern Orthodox, I’m sure they’d tell me that the bishop of Rome was trying to take authority that wasn’t his, and that the schism was quite justified. Indeed they would also probably say that Rome was the one who broke from authority.

Both groups are equally ancient, and both have contradicting views and interpretations on the issue of papal authority. So, which one is right, and how can I tell the difference?

This is basically what the Confederates could have said during the civil war about the issue of state’s rights. This doesn’t change the fact that the Confederates were the ones that actually broke from the Union.

I don’t have a historical source to back this up now, but I can get one in a few days. If one believes that the true religion needs guidance as I argued in my original post, then the first church, the one that groups broke off *from/I], can’t be in error.

Because the early church (more particularly, the scriptures they wrote) totally said future bishops should be elected.

What I meant is that when you are dealing with popes and antipopes we can examine their claim to the chair to see which is the true pope. For example, Urban VI was elected by the cardinals, but some later changed their minds and claimed to have been “pressured” to make the desicion, electing “pope” Clement VII. Urban VI had the proper claim in this case. I’m not sure if the Church just decrees the true pope in this case or not (after the fact), but I would think they examine the legality of his election first.

I believe the holy spirit provides me with that guidance. Why isn’t that good enough?

Because in a practical sense this idea has not worked out too well. We now have roughly 25,000 protestant demoninations, most of which claim to hold the true teachings of Christ.

No – sola scriptura adherents typically believe that God gave us scripture, and that God will lead each of us into accurate understanding thereof. It’s up to us to listen to what he’s saying. That’s why I believe most “sola scriptura” adherents are actually adherents of a methodology which involves scripture and divine guidance.

That’s what I said-each person is lead to the true interpretation himself.

As previously covered – what’s the point in disproving Protestantism, unless you’re trying to win by attrition.

My main point is that if you believe guidance as I described is necessary, we must chose between religions that claim to have it. If this condition is necessary, lack of physical or historical evidence for it means nothing.*