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

[SCALCO]

Great contribution, pnuema.

Clement refers to Korah’s rebellion too in his letter to the Corinthians.

 

[qui_est_ce]

How do you do those smiley’s with signs?
Teflon93;3627948:

Type what you want to be in the sign, highlight it, then click on the smiley with the in the second row toolbar at the far right of the window in which you type your text.

[SIGN]Thanks![/SIGN]

Rather than rectify this problem by becoming more of a church, many are now choosing to become more interesting clubs, with faster music, more activities, and things like talk show formats rather than preaching (where parishioners are called up to “share their testimony”). Would Christ recognize such practices as worship?

Now I get it. We had a guy at work who was always working on a “testimony” for the Sunday service. I didn’t understand why he was always doing these.

So, I guess, you don’t go to mass for the emotional satisfaction, or that your emotionalism kept you out of the CC. Sounds like you did a lot of logical research on Truth, and then took the leap of faith.

Was the CC charitable to you when you sought guidance? I’m sure you had many objections and disagreements with the CC you needed to clarify? I hope they didn’t consider you uncharitably because of this.

How long did it take you to come around after initially considering the CC? I know some who took more than ten years. Some say RCIA is too long. Our RCIA encourages many different people to get involved in the discussion. Every week a different person talks to the class about a specific topic, like a Sacrament or the Saints.

I hope this isn’t off topic, or that I am interrupting a discussion, Tef, I just know you went through a lot to become a Catholic, that you are not some parrot who repeats stock Catholic company lines. I’d sure get heated up if someone attacked my Sacred beliefs and called me illogical if I had gone to so much trouble to seek the Truth.

 

[Teflon93]

[SIGN]Thanks![/SIGN]
Now I get it. We had a guy at work who was always working on a “testimony” for the Sunday service. I didn’t understand why he was always doing these.

Various “Bible-believing” communities make “a valid testimony” a requirement for claiming to be a “true” Christian. Sounds like he was polishing his.

So, I guess, you don’t go to mass for the emotional satisfaction, or that your emotionalism kept you out of the CC. Sounds like you did a lot of logical research on Truth, and then took the leap of faith.

More of a “both and” than an “either/or” for me. I did a lot of research, but was also moved by our deacon, priests, and bishop and their quiet, Christ-centered lives. The examples of Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II moved my wife—it was their funerals and the outpouring of adoration for them that really led her to inquire more deeply into their lives.

Was the CC charitable to you when you sought guidance? I’m sure you had many objections and disagreements with the CC you needed to clarify? I hope they didn’t consider you uncharitably because of this.

Not at all. We called the local cathedral and indicated we were considering the Church. The deacon insisted upon meeting with us right away and spent an hour and a half listening to our story and carefully explaining related points in the Church. He then invited us to attend Mass and to sit in on an RCIA class. It was right before Easter, so they were getting ready for confirmation. Everyone was very welcoming, and we felt at home immediately. Not being able to receive the Eucharist was difficult, but worth the wait of over a year.

As we were heading to the cathedral for our confirmation, we ran into our bishop heading up a steep hill with two sturdy cases filled with his vestments. I helped him carry them, and upon seeing my wife had no coat (wanting to represent in her Easter dress on a chilly night), he immediately offered her his. “I can’t wear the bishop’s coat!” was her reaction. After the Easter service, he stayed behind to bless articles and pose for pictures with us. As godly a man as I’ve ever seen, or hope to see.

How long did it take you to come around after initially considering the CC? I know some who took more than ten years. Some say RCIA is too long. Our RCIA encourages many different people to get involved in the discussion. Every week a different person talks to the class about a specific topic, like a Sacrament or the Saints.

I grew up in a very Catholic state so I wasn’t in diehard opposition to the notion of converting. My wife as a Pentecostal had bigger issues. Since we’d done our homework beforehand, my wife essentially informed me we would be converting after our first Mass.

I hope this isn’t off topic, or that I am interrupting a discussion, Tef, I just know you went through a lot to become a Catholic, that you are not some parrot who repeats stock Catholic company lines. I’d sure get heated up if someone attacked my Sacred beliefs and called me illogical if I had gone to so much trouble to seek the Truth.

Every proud member of the Tiber Swim Team has their own story, to be sure. Some of our friends from RCIA have had to pay an enormous price for joining the true Church of Christ—lost friends, family rifts, etc. We have been very fortunate in that the price hasn’t been so steep for us. Of course, the reward makes any sacrifice we’re called upon to make pale in comparison.

It’s sometimes hard for our interlocutors to understand that we are not proud to be Catholic in the sense that they may be proud to be whatever denomination they may be. We are Catholic because we obey Christ. It was he who built the Church, and he who sustains her. We are Catholic because we want to be with him, and this is where he is. We argue in defense of the teachings of the Church not because we take pride in argument—everything I have said has not only been said by others, but said more eloquently and wisely than I could ever muster—but because the House of Christ deserves to be defended. The Church is Truth; if we are to be members of the Body of Christ we must despise unTruth. And so we do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It’s sometimes hard for our interlocutors to understand that we are not proud to be Catholic in the sense that they may be proud to be whatever denomination they may be. We are Catholic because we obey Christ. It was he who built the Church, and he who sustains her. We are Catholic because we want to be with him, and this is where he is. We argue in defense of the teachings of the Church not because we take pride in argument—everything I have said has not only been said by others, but said more eloquently and wisely than I could ever muster—but because the House of Christ deserves to be defended. The Church is Truth; if we are to be members of the Body of Christ we must despise unTruth. And so we do.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[answerer]

Yes. Any claim of authority derived from “revelations” is a circular one. This is why people use the word “faith” in a religious sense. It is acknowledged that the authority of the Church is by definition derived from a circular argument. The church is correct BECAUSE it is the church. Where did it get its information? From god. How do we know that god is giving correct information? Because he is god. Circular.

 

[joe370]

Ok. So I see the likelihood that there needs to be an earthly authority. Question is: How does one determine who has that authority?

**Find the Apostolic Church Jesus built circa 33 AD, in the world today, and you will be Home. (His Church is the house of the living God) Logically speaking, that rules out all protestant churches --no offense of course; they can only trace their origin back the the reformation. It really comes down to the E.O.C. and the C.C. Both these churches can trace their origin all the way back to the Apostles.
**

There are many churches claiming to be The One True Church/Earthly Authority. Why should I believe the CC is that authority?

**With the exception of the C.C. and the E.O.C. all other churches can only trace their origin back to a man or women, not Jesus; It is verifiable! **

I think the problem, at least for me and perhaps others, is the tendancy to believe that the best way to determine where the authority is, is to compare it to the early church; the apostolic church; the church of the Bible… Or, is that really a problem?:

**Well, the Apostolic Church preceded the bible; the Apostolic Church codified and canonized the bible; Jesus’ One Apostolic Church, mentioned over a hundred times in the bible, withstood heresies for 300 hundred years, before the bible was finally canonized; that was the very reason why the bible was finally canonized! From circa 33 AD until the early part of the second century, oral tradition was the normal vehicle by which the Apostolic Church taught, with the exception of a few letters written when, for example, Paul couldn’t make it to the A.C.

Any church based on the bible employs the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura and has led to disunity, division and dissension --all things the bible says to avoid; Jesus built One church, according to your bible, and told His established A.C. to teach and preach the good news everywhere; sola scriptura was an invention that stemmed from the P.R. If not for the A.C. none of us would own a bible; I guess that clears things up.
**
This is circular reasoning. If there needs to be an extra-biblical, eartly authority, we still need to determine where that authority is, and the bible is the only infallible source to turn to. The rest is heresay and more self-interpretation.

The Bible is not the pillar and foundation of truth; Jesus’ church is… It might be plausible if one assumes that God simply dropped the bible into the hands of each Christian and said --go --interpret privately. The official canon of the books of the Bible were authoritatively determined by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Therefore it is only because of the Catholic Church that the Protestants have a Bible at all. Following their own arguments of Sola Scriptura, the Protestants actually have no reason to quote from the Bible because they have no way of determining which books are Divinely inspired, unless they accept the authority of the Catholic Church! It is completely contradictory for Protestants to accept the Bible and then reject the Church. Without Sacred Tradition, there is no Sacred Scripture. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is a “catch-22”!

**Jesus built a church and said nothing would ever vanquish His Church; He said the Holy Spirit would “teach” and “guide” His Apostolic Church in perpetuity. So, Jesus built His Church; He gave that church, and no other, the authority to protect His teachings, including the Bible, and His church can’t fail because the Holy Spirit is guiding His Church, and more importantly --Jesus said, nothing will ever conquer It. Jesus gave us the church, and that A.C. ALONE --canonized the bible; if the bible is infallible, then it is because it is a product of the A.C. which is forever guided by the Infallible H.S.
**
It can’t be proven. But then again, neither can God’s existence be proven. You can show me what you think is more probable, and I can show you conflicting things that I think are more probable, but neither of us can prove anything at all and we all have to rely on our own, flawed judgement.

**Well, when it comes to Gods existence, you are right; it is a matter of faith. **

So, perhaps it looks more probable that the CC is the OTC, but the problem there is that when you introduce crafty Satan into the picture it throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing. Perhaps the CC looks like the most probable answer (I say “looks like” in that many of the reasoning, apologetically, historically, etc. is somewhat convincing)

I agree, and the anti-Christ is relentless in his pursuits to destroy Jesus’ Church which is His Body. But keep in mind, the bible, also says that Jesus is the Head and Savior of His Body, ergo, the anti-Christ can never win. He can and does win on an individual basis (members of His Church) but never the whole church.

but I always ask myself (and what is keeping me from accepting the Catholic defense) if the Catholic defense of “supposed” scripture contradictions are not simply crafty ways of excusing herself.

**What contradictions? **

Again, what contradictions? **Sola scriptura via private interpretation is a major contradiction, and that man-made doctrine cannot be found anywhere in Sacred Scripture. The Apostles would have been stunned to find out that S.S. via P.I. supplanted the teachings of their church, supplanted their authority, and their successors authority, which was to be the normal vehicle for passing on Jesus’ teachings --in perpetuity!! **

 

[joe370]

It seems to me that the Bible is simply viewed as old letters and early church writings with no more value than present church writings. If that is the case (as it seems to be – to Catholics anyway) then there is no way to really determine if the Catholic claims of authority, current teachings, etc. are valid or not b/c you can’t prove they didn’t fall into error somewhere along the lines w/out a point of comparison/rule of measure that the average Joe can turn to.

**Take it from me, an average Joe, pun intended, if the Apostolic Church is, as the bible says, forever guided by the Holy Spirit and the A.C. is the Church built by Jesus Christ and He is the Savior of His Body, the Church, as per scripture, and His church is the pillar and foundation of truth, the house of the living God, then rest assured, she can never fall into error; if His church fails just once vis-a-vis any one doctrine, then all Christianity is a lie; it’s just that simple --to me anyway. Remember --Jesus said nothing would ever vanquish His Apostolic Church. Now --all you have to do is locate that same church in the world today and your troubles are over… **

That, I believe, is where non-Cs determine that the Bible must be that authority. We know it comes from God. We’re not all so sure the CC as we see it today is.

Remember, even your bible says that Jesus built a church, not a bible:

…and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

And the bible says:

…If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.

Take to His Church, not interpret privately…

Jesus’ A.C. is the final arbiter on all matters of faith and morals, according to Jesus, His Apostles and your bible. Remember only holy men of God are to interpret Sacred Scripture:

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal (private) interpretation,
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. 2 Peter…

**And we all know that the Holy Spirit, sent to Jesus’ Apostolic Church circa 33 AD is forever teaching and guiding His Church --protecting His Church from pernicious heresy. If the Holy Spirit ever left His Church --if Jesus never said He was the Savior of His Church, then yes His church could teach something erroneously, but the Bible and His Church teach that the H.S. will be with His Church in perpetuity. **

God must be taking into account our flawed evalutations. If we infallibly interpret scripture, then we can’t infallibly interpret the earthly authority either.

We can’t, but His Church, which again, is His Body with Him as the Head and Savior of His Body --His Church ca, ergo His Church has the authority, granted to her by Jesus Himself:

Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, **I am with you always, until the end of the age.” **

 

[JohnVIII]

Find the Apostolic Church Jesus built circa 33 AD, in the world today, and you will be Home. (His Church is the house of the living God) Logically speaking, that rules out all protestant churches --no offense of course; they can only trace their origin back the the reformation. It really comes down to the E.O.C. and the C.C. Both these churches can trace their origin all the way back to the Apostles.

I understand the Baptists can trace their lineage back to the Anabaptists, which can trace their origin back to some really weird heretics at the time of the early Church that date as far back as the second century.

 

[joe370]

That’s why we have God’s Word in His Scriptures.

He told us.

…

Hey Atemi, help me out here…

If sacred scripture is reputedly the pillar and foundation of truth, as opposed to the church built by Jesus, then certainly it should be able to pass the authoritative litmus test, but it does not. For example, my niece belongs to a Lutheran church that subscribes to a symbolical interpretation of the Eucharist, while a friend of mine belonging to an evangelical Lutheran church subscribes to the catholic interpretation of the Eucharist. Both churches defer to “God’s Word” for edification, yet both come away with a different interpretation, all the while claiming that the other church is wrong. Who is right; who is wrong? Of course your answer will be based on your personal interpretation of the bible, or the church to which you belong.

Bottom line; sola scriptura doesn’t work! Clearly the bible states that Jesus passed on His authority to just one church, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, and she as the bride of Christ is guided by the holy spirit when it come to all that Jesus taught, and this, as per sacred scripture is to be done “until the end of time.”

Logically if one finds the church built by Jesus circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem, then one has found the “pillar and foundation of truth” and “the house of the living God,” to which Jesus is the head and Savior. Somewhere in the world today is the church built by God 2000 years ago, as opposed to churches built by mere men circa 1600 - 2100 AD.

If I am wrong, please help me out…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey Atemi, help me out here…

If sacred scripture is reputedly the pillar and foundation of truth, as opposed to the church built by Jesus, then certainly it should be able to pass the authoritative litmus test, but it does not. For example, my niece belongs to a Lutheran church that subscribes to a symbolical interpretation of the Eucharist, while a friend of mine belonging to an evangelical Lutheran church subscribes to the catholic interpretation of the Eucharist. Both churches defer to “God’s Word” for edification, yet both come away with a different interpretation, all the while claiming that the other church is wrong. Who is right; who is wrong? Of course your answer will be based on your personal interpretation of the bible, or the church to which you belong.

Bottom line; sola scriptura doesn’t work! Clearly the bible states that Jesus passed on His authority to just one church, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, and she as the bride of Christ is guided by the holy spirit when it come to all that Jesus taught, and this, as per sacred scripture is to be done “until the end of time.”

Logically if one finds the church built by Jesus circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem, then one has found the “pillar and foundation of truth” and “the house of the living God,” to which Jesus is the head and Savior. Somewhere in the world today is the church built by God 2000 years ago, as opposed to churches built by mere men circa 1600 - 2100 AD.

If I am wrong, please help me out…

Joe-

Prior to this post, this thread had been dormant for 10 months.

Prior to that it had been dormant since May '08.

Ya gotta know when to let go, my friend.