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

[PC_Master]

Once the matter is settled in this way, there is no more question as to what the Holy Spirit was telling the church.

It seems the question of the salvation of non-Roman-Catholics took many, many years to be answered. Even today, people interpret the texts regarding that issue differently. There will always be questions to be answered, and there will always be questions about any written text – such is the nature of written words.

Thus, no matter how many councils the RCC holds, there will always be questions unanswered. In fact, I’d say that even if all parties were willing to have resolution by means of the RCC passing judgement on the issues in question, it’s impossible for the RCC model to completely resolve all differences because it could never possibly address all of the issues out there. (Of course, you add to that that some people don’t want to resolve the differences – which of course is the same problem you like to talk about in Protestantism.)

You were right, because the council affirms what the Holy Spirit was telling you. I was wrong because the council did not affirm was the Holy Spirit was telling me.

And what if it didn’t explicitly answer the question (as Roman Catholic documents, in my experience, are well known for doing)?

Do you doubt the decision of the Jerusalem council? If yes, then we can have no guarantee.

No – as I said, these spiritually mature men came to the right answer in this case, which can easily be understood by reviewing the gospels, and hearing Christ’s own words on salvation.

I would say that it contradicts your interpretation of scripture over two thousand years since it was written.

Aye – you trust scripture. I trust scripture. We have differing views. Thus I distrust your interpretation of scripture, and you distrust mine. That seems to be an issue of independent interpretations…but the RCC is just one more party in the group on this count. It, like me, and other protestants I know, claims to have the correct understanding, given by God. But, as you like to ask – how do we know who’s right?

I would say I trust the interpretation of St. Clement who most likely had living recollections of St. Paul and St. Peter. He may even have had corespondence with them that we do not possess now.[/quoite]
As do I. But again, it seems to me that you try to read the modern-day RCC into history, assuming things into the context that we have no proof of happening. Likewise, I’m sure it seems to you that I’m ignoring “clearly [Roman] Catholic” things which are plainly available in the text for anyone who can read and apply a little common sense.

However, we’re both fallible beings – how can you prove that you’re right? I admit I can be wrong in my interpretations and understandings. But, I see nothing in scripture that expresses the “Petrine principle” or the hierarchy that you say must have existed.

…and form my views of scripture in accord with their own.

So you claim to have a perfect (without error) understanding of their texts and opinions?

Essentially you’re saying that you have read the ECFs and mirrored their beliefs, while at the same time implicitly claiming that I haven’t – all this on the basis that you disagree with my interpretation thereof? Isn’t that exactly what you have a problem with me doing – interpreting scripture and history and rejecting what doesn’t fit into my interpretation?

Lets focus on the Apostles for a moment. They were commision by Jesus at the end of the Gospel of Matthew to go out and teach the nations.

Correct – specifically, instructing them in all the things that Christ commanded them. So, where did Christ command that they confess their sins to priests (for example)? Or are we assuming that Christ communicated that to them outside of what is recorded in the gospels? This I could accept…however it would also require accepting that each generation of successors to the apostles (were there such individuals persay) would have to infallibly understand and communicate all those truths to the next generation. It would seem then that, like Jewish oral tradition, it would be written down at some point almost verbatim to what the apostles spoke to their original descendants.

This requires them to have more than spiritual maturity, but an authority derived directly from Christ.

Why? Why is authority from Christ required? They were commissioned, and I suppose thereby “given authority” to teach – but is that specifically limited to the apostles? Where does it expressly speak of apostolic succession? Where does Christ say “and those you teach shall be taught without error, and they will perfectly understand my truth and pass it to the next generation”? No, I’m not looking for those exact words – but something in the remote vicinity would be nice.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

The apostles in turn selected spiritually mature people to be bishops and priest. Thus the hierarchy is established.

Did they? Even if so, where’s the record of there being a pope at the top of this pyramid? Where’s the record of them appointing replacements for the hierarchy? If all they did was appoint pastors over churches (which is what’s recorded in scripture), to replace them as they moved on to other churches and/or died, where is that a hierarchy? It’s simply a continuation of ministry and ordinary office.

Not really, because although Stephen did not know anything about the results of the Jerusalem council, I am sure he would not have dissagreed with its conclusions.

I agree, on the grounds that he would have necessarily reasoned from his understanding of salvation (as taught by Christ) that salvation comes by faith, and not by observance of the law. But that decision need not have been made by him at all, or by anyone else – the truth – salvation by faith – is contained clearly in scripture, such that anyone seeking the truth can clearly understand and reason it.

In the same way, if Peter were to time travel to the 20th century, I am sure after being explained the results of subsequent, would agree with the decisions of each council as a reflection of his own beliefs.

You’re sure, because you believe that all those “developments” are indeed the necessary result of the faith being confronted with heresies, right? But if your belief is wrong, and the RCC erred in its decisions, would Peter agree? Probably not.

More importantly, just because you claim that such things are the necessary result of scripture – how do you validate that claim? For instance, the definition of papal infallibility – you can say “oh, it’s clearly in scripture and just had to be defined because it was challenged – but you can be sure it was a part of the deposit of faith implicitly believed throughout history”…but how do we know that’s true, when many did dispute with “popes” of the day? How do we know it’s not just the RCC claiming that this is the necessary and only valid result of the true faith? Where’s the external validation – the divine evidence of the RCC’s truthfulness?

I do not believe the Apostles had imperfect faith. They had implicit understanding of the faith which encompasses all future developments.

So they understood, even though they never wrote it down, that you must confess to a priest your mortal sins? (That’s just one example among many.)

Yes. I believe it could. If you feel into the Arian heresy, the implications of this error could be devestating to your faith. And the same goes for every other council. If you accept the protestant version of the truth, you are left without any shepherds to guide you.

I’m left with scripture and the holy spirit. Christ claimed to be “God the father”. Thus, that would seemingly defeat arianism without any hassle, as it regards Christ as a separate person created by God.

Yes, but if what you believe is in error, then your salvation could be at risk because of the spiritual pitfalls you could walk into.

Correct – but that’s the fact of free will. We’re not guaranteed to be correct in our beliefs. This isn’t a Protestant-only thing, however. I know – at this point you’ll say “but we have a visible source that can be consulted if someone wants the truth” to which I say that I have a heavenly source I can consult, which has no less power, authority, and capability to express the truth than the RCC does, and actually a good deal more.

 

[utunumsint]

We’ll grant your assumption as true for a moment here. This raises the question – why is it you believe the holy spirit incapable of resolving this issue in the hearts of those who wish to follow Christ? As you’ve said, those who disagreed with the words of the “council of Jerusalem” might have found themselves at odds with the rest of their respective congregations – how is this different from the holy spirit confirming the truth of the issue
to the individual believers?

 

[utunumsint]

Thus, no matter how many councils the RCC holds, there will always be questions unanswered. In fact, I’d say that even if all parties were willing to have resolution by means of the RCC passing judgement on the issues in question, it’s impossible for the RCC model to completely resolve all differences because it could never possibly address all of the issues out there. (Of course, you add to that that some people don’t want

That is not the case with me. I read the text for what is says. St. Clement insisted on obedience to the Bishop. That is all. Are you in agreement with what he says? Yes or no? Who do you obey?

Essentially you’re saying that you have read the ECFs and mirrored their beliefs, while at the same time implicitly claiming that I haven’t – all this on the basis that you disagree with my interpretation thereof? Isn’t that exactly what you have a problem with me doing – interpreting scripture and history and rejecting what doesn’t fit into my interpretation?

Yes. I don’t think you are reading the early church fathers in an unbiased manner, as history.

Correct – specifically, instructing them in all the things that Christ commanded them. So, where did Christ command that they confess their sins to priests (for example)? Or are we assuming that Christ communicated that to them outside of what is recorded in the gospels? This I could accept…however it would also require accepting that each generation of successors to the apostles (were there such individuals persay) would have to infallibly understand and communicate all those truths to the next generation. It would seem then that, like Jewish oral tradition, it would be written down at some point almost verbatim to what the apostles spoke to their original descendants.

I believe that it was written down. We have evidence of confession in the early church. How it was practiced varied from place to place and from time to time, but the bishop or the presbyter was always the one to set the penance. Sometimes the penance was public, in front of everyone (as is required by James). Today it is private. I am glad for this fact.

God bless,
Ut

[/QUOTE]

 

[utunumsint]

Did they? Even if so, where’s the record of there being a pope at the top of this pyramid? Where’s the record of them appointing replacements for the hierarchy? If all they did was appoint pastors over churches (which is what’s recorded in scripture), to replace them as they moved on to other churches and/or died, where is that a hierarchy? It’s simply a continuation of ministry and ordinary office.

 

[bookgirl32]

Why is there reason to believe that God protected the oral traditions of the church, if we see no indication in scripture (or in early church writings) to that extent?

Well, now we’re back to interpretation, b/c the Bible DOES say that. But I’m sure you’ve gone over that argument with everybody else.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

That’s a big assumption that 2000 years of Catholic theology can’t prove you wrong, or that you can always show ‘conflicting things’ very naive.

That perhaps answers your question on your angle in coming back to the Church, your naivety, overthinking a situation has also known to cause problems.

Intrinsically, what the Church teaches is faith, sure there are plenty of doctrines and philosophical proofs, but that’s not the central message, nor should it be.

I know this is like 5 months late, but this is the first time I’m seeing this thread.

Heh - never too late! I’m always following along…

Your thoughts here did occur to me. I think, somewhere on about page 6? Anyway, here was my post:

from my former confessor several years ago - a man who once worked at the Vatican (a Franciscan priest now almost 100 years old by the name Father Alphonsus Mary) – is a pamphlet he wrote about Proving the Truth of Our Catholic Faith. He says that the type of reasoning one would have used to come to faith in Jesus in His time, is the same type of reasoning we should be able to use to come to faith in the RCC. It was not solely through Jesus’ words that people believed, for many had previously claimed the same things as He, but also through the miracles that attested to the Divine Origins of His words, as well as the testimonies of others. He uses the story of the man born blind and healed by Jesus as an analogy to the kind of faith one must have. This man had heard the claims of Jesus (but could not prove them to be true) and had heard stories of the miracles He had performed (thought he himself had not seen any due to his blindness), but when Jesus asked if he accepts Him as God’s Spokesman and accepts His message, "the blind man reflects on the miracles which the stranger has worked…though he has not seen them, but he can somehow know the accounts he has heard are not lies. So he answers: “I believe you are from God.”. Then, “Insofar as you believe my message and that I come from God as His spokesman, receive your sight”. This is divine faith: “namely, accepting something on divine authority.”. There is also human faith and pious faith. “Accounts that are non-religious, which do not oppose good sense and are written by reliable authors, are believed with human faith. Accounts about holy topics reported by reliable authors and which in no wise oppose sound reason, faith, or good morals (although they sometimes tell extraordinary things) are believed with pious faith. Accounts in Holy Scripture are believed with divine faith.” (St. Louis Montfort) "To unreasonably judge a witness incompetent or untruthful, who reports something challenging, is rash judgment and sins against human or pious faith, depending on the subject matter. Of course, if the judgment is not rash, but reasonable, or we simply suspend judgment, then we do not sin. If we unreasonably reject some reported pious fact or divine prodigy not in the Bible, we sin against pious faith; that is, we are not duly seeking the Mightiest Master nor duly disposed to recognize evidences of His will. By pious faith, we discover premises necessary in order to have divine faith. That is, we learn thereby religion-related facts about martyrs, Saints, and miracles, and learn to appreciate the four marks of the Church. There are certain Catholics who, after many rash, unfair judgments which sinned against pious faith, woke up to discover that they no longer had divine faith, without which it is impossible to please God. The accumulation of false judgments had created a “credibility gap.” The premises were gone for acknowledging God’s signature on the revelation of divine Catholic faith.” This speaks quite well of me. How fitting it was that he gave me at that time, no doubt seeing the direction my doubt was taking me.

Point is, there is much evidence, not just biblical, historical, testimonial, miraculous or experiential – one cannot come to faith by isolating one of these areas, but needs to look at the whole of it and be duly disposed to recognize it as truth. If truly searching, look at the lives of the saints, and look at the well-documented miracles as well as the historical (ECF writings for example) and biblical evidence. Asking for “logical proof” will not bring one to the truth b/c then, it seems, one is looking for isolated, empirical proof which is against faith and is not how even people in Jesus’ time came to faith in Him.

cont…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The interesting thing is, that I was just discussing the possibility of “overthinking” with the director of Bible study at my old CAtholic parish the other day (I still follow along in the studies at home) and admitted that I may just be too stuck on the “head-knowledge” of what I read in Scripture. When I consider my prayer life as a Catholic and my Eucharisitic devotion, although my head says “NO!” - my heart says differently. This time next year there will be an adoration chapel available in this parish - about 3 minutes down the street from me. I don’t think I will be able to resist that.

In the meantime, I’ve got a long way to go. I’m not settled much on anything right now.

Maybe you could remember me in a wee prayer?

Bless You~

 

[pneuma07]

To reshape something is to change it, which means there are differences, and thus disunity. … The same teaching, when understood differently by different people in different cultures in different times, is not to be said to have the same understanding.

 

[pneuma07]

I’m not settled much on anything right now.

Maybe you could remember me in a wee prayer?

QUOTE]

Dear Joy,

for sure I will.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Dear Joy,

for sure I will.

Thank so much

 

[guanophore]

Why is there reason to believe that God protected the oral traditions of the church, if we see no indication in scripture (or in early church writings) to that extent?

On the contrary! The NT itself is such an indication. Written 30-60 years after the events took place, it is inspired-inerrant because it proceeds from the Sacred Tradition that was preserved. Can you remember what you learned in class 20 years ago? Only the HS could preserve His Word in this way.

You’re saying I should believe it on the basis that the RCC says its true? We’re back into circularity here. I don’t form an affirmative belief in God’s action, unless there’s reason to do so. I see no evidence that God chose to protect the verbal words and teachings of man from error (be they devout or otherwise).

Then you have to throw out your NT, and also the Canon, which was formed on the basis of those Sacred Traditions. I will not presume to tell you what you “should” believe, but I can tell you that without a doubt, God is able to watch over His word to perform it. He prepared the Jewish people, whose faith is inseparably entrenched in Sacred Oral Tradition, and brought salvation to the world through them. To me, it seems that you have a Trust issue. It is not really the Catholic Church you doubt, but God. That NT that you appear to accept without question contains within it the commandment to preserve the Sacred Traditions. For some reason, you seem to think that God would command something He could not effect.

2 Thess 2:14-15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Since the two came from the same Source, what makes you think that less attention would be given to one?

So the holy spirit is only okay when satan isn’t around? Surely God’s greater than evil, right?

Except when it comes to preserving the inerrant-inspired revelation that comes by word of mouth. Then I guess the Devil is stronger?

Gathering a council of those with spiritual maturity sheds light on what the holy spirit is truly saying to the church. What does authority have to do with it, though? Those who wanted to hear the truth would respect the spiritual maturity held by those in Jerusalem (had they not, they’d have not consulted them). those who did not want to hear, would not listen – whether they spoke with an authority or not. The belief would not change. Thus, spiritual maturity is enough to accomplish the ends that are able to be accomplished (that is, to show the seeking believer the truth).

Plenty of spiritually mature elders fell into heresy. A study of the Arian controversy will show this. Authority has everything to do with it.

First off, there is no “my holy spirit” versus “your holy spirit”. There is only the holy spirit – there’s only one. What is more appropriate is to say that you are convinced in your belief having been revealed by the holy spirit.

Well, aren’t we all? How do we determine who is correct? Why did Jesus say to take the dispute to the Church, instead of to the Writings?

As to what is to be done – the answer is simple. Ask and it shall be given – seek and ye shall find – knock and the door shall be opened to you. (Luke 11:9) God promises to give to those who truly wish to receive. It’s not that hard. It’s just that we’re imperfect, and want to hear things from a more tangible earthly source. (I share that desire, by the way.)

It is in our nature. That is why Jesus established a Church, and gave authority to the Apostles.

While the system is good in theory, it fails in reality, and there’s also the question of whether that system is actually being led by God, or not.

Continued…

If it is faulty, then you have to take it up with Jesus, since he is the one that set it up that way.

 

[PC_Master]

All right – lots of posts today. Let’s see what we can do…

The authority of the church as a collective is greater than an individual.

You’re again assuming a hierarchy without first demonstrating that. The “council of Jerusalem” doesn’t qualify as a ruling body for the entirety of Christianity, by any means. You assume that it was, and accept that without question – but there’s nothing that really shows that.

So if the twelve apostles, and multiple bishops are in agreement against the opinion of the Judaisers, then this trumps their individual opinion, and Paul can now say It is my individual Gospel, endorsed by the twelve, and all of these others. There is clearly a difference here.

It’s interesting that he never said that. He always spoke of the authority he held from Christ himself, but never of any authorization from the apostles, pope, or any sort of church hierarchy. One would think that if there’s a clearly-recognizable earthly leadership, and you’re trying to express the authority you have, you’d appeal to this. It’s a glaring omission that is, to me, unthinkable if he’d been given authority by an earthly body.

Well when Satan is dealing with the ignorant and the unstable, any scripture can be distorted. Here is Peter on Paul’s letters “In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”

All right – you seem to have set up an argument that we can apply to both Protestant and Roman Catholic conditions:

On the one hand, if we assume that there was a visible hierarchy, then Paul’s letters (at least the later ones) would have been officially authorized by that body. Thus, Paul’s teachings are officially church-approved. Now, Peter says that the “ignorant and unstable” distort Paul’s writings to their own destruction. So, we have teachings officially sanctioned by God’s own appointed leadership (guaranteed to teach infallibly), and yet some in the church disregarded these teachings.

On the other hand, we have the holy spirit revealing the truth to Paul, who in turn writes letters. He claims to be teaching the truth, and yet, some people disregard his teachings.

So, again, where’s the RCC better?

Peter also says that interpretation of scripture is not a private matter, but a public matter.

True, but if you read the surrounding context, it’s very clear that this is speaking to moral relativism – there is one truth, good for all, not a truth that applies to only one. It wasn’t speaking of the means of revelation. It doesn’t say that “there is no revelation given to individuals – it’s all revealed in public”.

Also of note – though in my opinion a minor matter here – the passage in question speaks of prophesy, not revelation. But again, this is a minor issue.

OK. So maybe I should start seeking with my local Rabbi, or swammi. If I am truly sincere about my seeking, I should be able to find the truth through them, no?

No – you will find the truth by sincerely seeking God – the rabbi or other religious teacher won’t necessarily reveal the truth to you. God will – I happen to believe there are a lot fewer people truly seeking than many would like to believe.

But the Bible leave so many questions unanswered, or unelaborated, and glosses over other important issues that the Holy Spirit is telling me that it is not self sufficient.

Such as?

Tell that to all the sincere heretics out there.

Sincere heretics are sincere in their beliefs, but not necessarily sincere in their search for the truth.

The church does not need to define every single doctrine. It tends to do so only when a doctrine becomes a source of division among the faithful.

So in reality, a disagreement between two believers can’t be solved by the magisterium. The magisterium only steps in when there’s mass disagreement among the constituents.

The Catholic Church is not called to resolve all possible differences.

All current differences then? (It doesn’t seem to do that either – limbo, specifics of purgatory, etc.)

They had only the teaching of the Apostles to rely on during the council. This is a fact.

I should have been more specific – Stephen could have come to the same conclusion based on the knowledge of Christ’s words, as relayed by the apostles. (And yes, I believe God’s inspiration to the authors of scripture was a special intervention.)

That is not the case with me. I read the text for what is says.

So you say. And essentially you’re also saying that I don’t. There is a difference between you believing that you interpret scripture and other writings in an unbiased manner and actually doing it.

St. Clement insisted on obedience to the Bishop. That is all. Are you in agreement with what he says? Yes or no?

Are you sure that’s what he said? I think you should read what he wrote more clearly. (Specifically take notice of the reasons why he said the individual in question should not be ejected from office – it wasn’t for the sake of the office, nor for who appointed him.)

I believe that it was written down. We have evidence of confession in the early church. How it was practiced varied from place to place and from time to time, but the bishop or the presbyter was always the one to set the penance.

Really? Let’s have a look at the earliest record we have…

James says that we should confess our sins and pray, and we will be healed from our sicknesses and be forgiven of our sins. It says nothing of confessing to a priest (or bishop, pastor, deacon, apostle, etc) – it says “to one another”. It says nothing of penance in a brief glance-through. So, was James wrong?

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Sometimes the penance was public, in front of everyone (as is required by James).

Eh?

Well there are the passages mentioned in Timothy, and the witness of the Early Church Fathers.

Paul wrote to Timothy that he should find others who were faithful and reliable, and to pass the truth on to them so that they would be able to do the same. This is a succession of ministry, not of office – also note that Paul says to appoint men, not “a man”. The succession is in spreading the truth of God to others, not in holding some kind of authoritative office.

As for the ECFs, I also see very little mention to apostolic succession, with most such references being centuries later. If you have something that demonstrates that there should be successors to each apostle or bishop, perhaps that would be useful.

Once again, a scripture that the early church did not have.

It’s not a matter of the scriptures on paper themselves – but rather the teachings contained therein, which they certainly did have. Additionally, they had the holy spirit, and a reliability in the verbal teachings as they were witnessed directly from Christ or his disciples – playing telephone with three people (the situation then – Christ to the apostles and multitudes to the church at large) is much more reliable than playing with 300 people (or more).

And again, I’m not questioning things that could be reasonably developed from the teachings of Christ – for instance, since Christ teaches that it is by faith we are saved, we can reasonably understand that it is not by the mosaic law that we are saved. This takes nothing more than a simple application of logic. It’s quite consistent and easy to get.

What I am questioning are the things which cannot directly be inferred from scripture and equally antique teachings – such as confession to a priest, papal primacy, infallibility, apostolic succession, etc.

It was the belief of the early church Fathers as I’ve shown you again and again.

No, you’ve offered assertions, along with your own interpretations, to that effect. But I disagree with your interpretation.

Explicitly, yes.

I guess James missed the memo, as he wrote “confess your sins to one another”. It was explicitly understood that you were supposed to confess to a priest, and yet James speaks of confession and makes no mention of this pivotal ingredient of the process?

If only it were that simple during the council of Nicaea and afterwards.

What was so complex? The largest issue at Nicea was Arianism, and it was very clearly opposed by a majority of those in attendance. The holy spirit prevailed. (And the pope wasn’t even present at that council – something I’d never realized before.)

Well, now we’re back to interpretation, b/c the Bible DOES say that. But I’m sure you’ve gone over that argument with everybody else.

Do you have a scripture reference (or something else very antique) that says oral traditions would not be corrupted? I’ve looked, and found nothing to that extent.

I’d say teaching is reshaped in order to remain faithful to itself thorugh different contexts, within which a formally identical message would be perceived in a really different way.

In other words, you’re saying a written message can and will be understood differently by different people in different places? That’s interesting – it also means that the supposedly infallible papal documents are not infallible, because a variety of interpretations will come from them by necessity.

Since the charge of unsettling discontinuities has been introduced, therefore I am trying to explain how to conceive and defend continuity. Which, as you correctly state, is not a sufficient condition in itself. Just an important element

Perhaps I should rephrase – what I meant is that I see contradictions, not only explicitly, but implicitly in that some concepts later introduced are simply not present at all in scripture.

No “RCC teaching” Since the disciples of the Apostles instituted episcopacy…

Where? I thought the argument was that Paul did, in writing to Timothy.

That the teaching of the Apostles was betrayed and/or grossly misunderstood by the bunch of would be heretics the Apostles had selected. Or, that episcopacy is in agreement with the teaching of the Apostles.

Or that your interpretation of the writings of those individuals is biased.

You can legitimately claim that you do not see, as we do, Scripture and history pointing to the Catholic Church ( and to a lesser extent other apostolic churches) as candidate to the job of best interpreter of Revelation ever.

Woah there – this isn’t about what * would be best. This is about what God decided to do. But, to rephrase, it’s correct that I don’t see scripture and history pointing to the RCC as the means God chose for revelation of the truth to his followers.

Continued…*

 

[PC_Master]

What nobody can anyhow see is Scripture and history pointing to an individual believer of the 21st century ( Keith or Samantha) , or to the “XXX unified Church Synod 19yy” for that job.

Woah!!! You’re twisting things around here – when did I say that I was the best interpreter of revelation for others? By my belief, the holy spirit does the revealing to others, not I. I can do my best to teach what’s been revealed to me if God leads me to teach, but the clarification, and ultimately, the revelation of his truth, happens via the holy spirit. I’m not by any means saying that my understanding of the truth should be the measuring rod by which all others behave.

So we can see there is no “one more in the bunch”.

No, this is exactly what it is. On the one hand, I have the RCC claiming to have received the truth from God. They then claim to put forth that truth to the faithful. On the other hand, I have my own personal experience, through which I believe I’ve obtained the truth from God. Essentially, if I accept the RCC as my source of revelation, I reject the holy spirit (by believing that it won’t reveal anything to me).

There is the “self” or the Catholic Church. These are our real alternative candidates.

No, it’s holy spirit versus RCC (which of course claims the holy spirit as its source). The difference is that it claims to be an infallible interpreter, whereas I do not.

Nor was the Creed given that way: delivering a direct communication to all believers around the world.

Most of the Nicene Creed is basic stuff fully contained in scripture. Some of the details are unnecessary to our faith.

You claim papacy is an unsettling discontinuty as a matter of fact after several megathreads on that. Waiting for the new debate you were planning, do you read those threads as giving this conclusion ?

I don’t ever expect the RCs on this forum to agree with me on the issue. It’s certainly not a matter of who “won” those debates – and who said I was planning another one? I view it as fact based on a complete lack of anything explicitly, or necessarily implicitly, papal in scripture. There are things which are interpreted to “fit in” with the papacy, but nothing which doesn’t fit in with the history as I understand it. So, yes, the papacy is an unsettling difference from scripture and early church history.

This paragraph does not seem to support the “unsettling discontinuity” as a matter of fact; rather you seem to consider
the matter as uncertain. What is you present perspective ?

My perspective is that the papacy should not be assumed until disproved. If we do that, essentially we can claim many untrue things that aren’t explicitly contradicted in scripture. The evidence, when weighed with the tiniest sense of logic, simply rejects the notion of there having been a pope at the time any scripture was written. It simply would have been noted, clearly and precisely.

“Acting papally” is a sort of abstract expression. Does B16 act just the same way as a XVIII century or a XIII century pope ? Does that mean the former or the latter are not “real popes” ?

By “acting papally” I mean, acting with some indication of the authority they uniquely possessed as pope. For example, at the “council of Jerusalem”, we don’t see Peter behaving in a manner more authoritative than any of the others referenced there. We don’t see that it was “Peter, along with the elders and apostles in Jerusalem” that made the decision. We simply see nothing beyond the authority of an apostle from Peter.

We have seen above episcopacy being instituted just after the Apostles. ( I dare repeat “we”, assuming you read Ignatius). These bishops, selected by the Apostles and their disciples, succeed in some of the functions of the Apostles, and in this sense, are the first ones in the chain of apostolic succession.

No doubt that many church leaders have had successors – what I don’t see in the early church writings is that they succeeded to a unique apostolic office of any sort. Instead, they were simply teachers of the word of God, much as pastors in various denominations are today.

PCM wrote:

scripture is from God. We disagree about understanding it because we are imperfect.
AND

*if the RCC were from God, there wouldn’t be nearly as much disagreement in belief as there currently is. *

Ah – now I understand your confusion. What I meant is that if the RCC was God’s intended method for maintaining unity, there wouldn’t be as much disagreement. Scripture, like revelation from the holy spirit, is not meant to maintain unity – it’s meant to communicate truth to those seeking. Different purpose – different qualifications.

More later, perhaps.

 

[bookgirl32]

Do you have a scripture reference (or something else very antique) that says oral traditions would not be corrupted? I’ve looked, and found nothing to that extent.

Yes, the Church is the pillar of truth, etc. I’ve seen you debating this with the other posters, and know what you think about it.

Do you have a scripture reference that says the Bible would not be corrupted?

 

[PC_Master]

Yes, the Church is the pillar of truth, etc. I’ve seen you debating this with the other posters, and know what you think about it.

Do you have a scripture reference that says the Bible would not be corrupted?

Nope. So, when left with two things, neither of which have been explicitly promised by God, it stands to reason (for me anyway), that a written source of teachings would be more beneficial, and thus would be part of the means God would use.

For a verbal tradition to be passed on inerrantly, not only do the original speakers of that truth need to be completely open to God’s will, but so do all recipients. That’s just not going to happen.

 

[bookgirl32]

Nope. So, when left with two things, neither of which have been explicitly promised by God, it stands to reason (for me anyway), that a written source of teachings would be more beneficial, and thus would be part of the means God would use.

For a verbal tradition to be passed on inerrantly, not only do the original speakers of that truth need to be completely open to God’s will, but so do all recipients. That’s just not going to happen.

I can’t answer this question b/c I don’t agree with it. I believe scripture supports the concept of tradition and scripture, with the Church upholding both.

 

[PC_Master]

I can’t answer this question b/c I don’t agree with it. I believe scripture supports the concept of tradition and scripture, with the Church upholding both.

It wasn’t a question.

Besides, it seems that you approach this from a “the RCC is right until explicitly proven wrong” – a faulty approach for any belief system. Until this changes, I’m not certain that anything presented to you will be sufficient, or will be reasonably responded to.

On the other hand, I adopt the position that for me to believe something, there needs to be reasonable support for it, consisting of at least some evidence that cannot reasonably be explained in another way.

This entire thread is filled with arguments that claim to support the RCC – but you have to rely on the RCC to interpret the evidence in order for that to happen. Some have claimed to simply read scripture and other writings for what they actually are, but nearly all participants have a certain bias – for instance, ut assumes that the writings must be taken in a context of a hierarchal church with a pope, etc. When effectively assuming what is to be proved…I dunno, it seems a lose-lose proposition to me, rather than a discussion of benefit.

By the way, I really would like to see your response, bookgirl (and others) to my questions about confession. If James clearly says that we should confess our sins to one another and pray, and we’ll be forgiven…how does it become required that at least some sins must be confessed to a priest (or bishop, etc), who then issues penance and forgiveness in the place of Christ? What’s the earliest reference to required confession to a priest in history?

 

[pneuma07]

Claiming to respect my personal experience of revelation from the holy spirit seems false when considering that you seem to be arguing that the holy spirit does not in fact reveal the truth as I believe. (If it doesn’t happen, then it couldn’t have happened to believe, and you’re implicitly stating that I’m incorrect – that’s not respect.)