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

[Sarpedon]

The Bible itself says scripture is difficult. Peter says Paul’s teachings are difficult to understand. I think it’s safe to say that scripture is not always the easiest thing to interpret – even the gospels can be difficult, let alone delving into Revelation. So, for admittedly difficult scripture, the Catholic Church has EVERYTHING absolutely right doctrinally? That is where I just cannot agree. I’ll probably take some heat for saying this, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable either – it seems awfully arrogant to say “no thanks, I already have all of the answers.”

Allow me to jump in for a second…
It dosen’t seem any more arrogant to me than saying that you can interpret scripture on your own personal authority. If God gave all the answers to a single institution, then that’s just the way it is. Arrogance has nothing to do with what is. Of course, some individuals may be closeminded and arrogant, but this doesn’t having any bearing on whether the issues at hand are true or not.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So, for admittedly difficult scripture, the Catholic Church has EVERYTHING absolutely right doctrinally? That is where I just cannot agree. I’ll probably take some heat for saying this, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable either – it seems awfully arrogant to say “no thanks, I already have all of the answers.” If you have all of the answers already why then, as Inkaneer posts, would doctrine be “clarified” over time? There is no need to clarify a correct answer. I also don’t see how any real discussion can occur between Catholics and Protestants as to these issues with that Catholic belief. Maybe that’s why I seem to be the only Protestant voice here. And for that matter, why is there a “Catholic Answers” forum if all of the answers have already been decided? Why don’t you just list them? (Not meant to be sarcastic, but I’m not sure how to ask that without sounding a bit sarcastic, just wanted to clarify).

A fair question! If I may interject and clarify something. When the Church talks about having the fullness of truth, it has the fullness of revealed truth. In other words, whatever God has chosen to reveal to man in the New Covenant, He has done so through the Catholic Church.

Also, God chooses to reveal in stages which can be seen throughout the OT, and the NT (a microcosm can be seen in Mark 8:22-26). So that’s why doctrines develop, just like they have since the time of Adam. The Church as a Body matures. The Church is limited in explaining doctrines insomuch as the Holy Spirit moves them to do so. So a proper way to understand it is not that the Church has “all truth”…that belongs to God…but again, it, and it alone, does have all that has been revealed. I could probably find you a more official explanation if you wanted…but it’s late.

Also, it is not implausible at all to think that a Church has never taught doctrinal error if you believe the Holy Spirit is working through that Church. I know you may not think this about the Catholic Church, but what I’m saying is that if the Holy Spirit was working through a Church, it would certainly never teach error!

 

[Teflon93]

The Bible itself says scripture is difficult. Peter says Paul’s teachings are difficult to understand. I think it’s safe to say that scripture is not always the easiest thing to interpret – even the gospels can be difficult, let alone delving into Revelation. So, for admittedly difficult scripture, the Catholic Church has EVERYTHING absolutely right doctrinally?

The Church is the Bride of Christ, and protected by her. She has endured 2,000 years, which no Protestant community can claim. No Protestant community can even claim doctrinal integrity a mere 500 years from Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

So yes, the Church is right. This is hard for Protestants to believe, having been born in pride and exalting disobedience, a necessary requirement for revering the Reformers. Yet you won’t see a Pope bragging, for Catholics realize it is God, not clergy, not laity, who is responsible for this.

That is where I just cannot agree. I’ll probably take some heat for saying this, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable either – it seems awfully arrogant to say “no thanks, I already have all of the answers.” If you have all of the answers already why then, as Inkaneer posts, would doctrine be “clarified” over time?

The same way that mathematics has clarified over time. Calculus doesn’t make arithmetic wrong.

There is no need to clarify a correct answer. I also don’t see how any real discussion can occur between Catholics and Protestants as to these issues with that Catholic belief. Maybe that’s why I seem to be the only Protestant voice here. And for that matter, why is there a “Catholic Answers” forum if all of the answers have already been decided? Why don’t you just list them? (Not meant to be sarcastic, but I’m not sure how to ask that without sounding a bit sarcastic, just wanted to clarify).

If there were no answers, it would be “Catholic Questions”.

You also seem to think discussion is the end, not the means. Read Avery Cardinal Dulles’ excellent First Things article on ecumenism this month; it will illuminate.

Christianity is not to be defined by the lowest common denominator of agreement.

And, this is a bit of a side issue, but how is it that limbo is not an issue of “faith” to which infalibility would attach? Isn’t one’s eternal destination THE issue of faith? Was this a doctrine or dogma that was simply clarified after 1500 years? I’m sorry to keep coming back to limbo but because of the fairly recent press on the issue it’s on my mind. But I guess on that note, how would the crusades not be an issue of “faith” via the great commission (or a “moral” determination)? What was the purpose for the crusades if not an interpretation of how to spread the Word of God? (Again, these are meant to be honest questions and I’m not trying to be argumentative … just to clarify.)

Contrary to Protestantism, the Catholic Church does not define dogma willy nilly. Limbo is not a dogma because there is disagreement over it based on existing evidence and the Holy Spirit has yet to to tell us it does or does not exist. Therefore, the Church makes no claim, however inconvenient that may be for those waiting in the wings to criticize her.

 

[Krocker]

Same old, same old. “We were first.” “We are infallible.” There is no reason to continue discussing. No problems. I was just hoping I would get a little more. We still agree on the “big” stuff and I am fine with that.

 

[inkaneer]

Let’s discuss Limbo. This subject has been bandied about and is always one of the first raised by protestants to allegedly show where the Catholic Church changed a doctrine. That is, however, simply not the case. Limbo was never a doctrine of the church. There was however, in the early church what was called the Limbus Patrium or Limbo of the Fathers. This corresponded to various terms used in the scriptures such as “the bosum of Abraham” “prison” and “paradise”. This “Limbus Patrium” ended with Jesus setting the captives free after His death on the cross. Later, the notion of a “Limbus Infantium” arose when theologians debated the destiny of souls who committed no actual sin but still had the effects of original sin. By insisting on the absolute necessity of being “born again of water and the Holy Ghost” (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (Baptism), scripture contains no definite statement regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with mortal sin. The early church writers were divided on the subject with some advocating a neutral state where there was no reward but also no punishment. All of that changed with the Pelagian heresy which adopted the “neutral state” idea. The general consensus was that since the Pelagian heretics supported the idea of a neutral state it must be heretical. Therefore Augustine and theologians after him were of the oppinion that no such neutral state existed and that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all.

This Augustinian view held sway for several centuries until St. Thomas Aquinas came along and again the idea changed. Thomas made his arguement based on whether an infinitely just God could punish a soul if that soul did not commit a mortal sin and in the case of unbaptized infants was incapable of committing a mortal sin. He reasoned that such a judgement was not just at all and would no be in keeping with an All just God… Other theologians weighed in on the subject and variations of all sorts developed. As a result, there has never been a defined doctrine on Limbo in the Church. Neither the Written Tradition nor the Oral Tradition addresses it specifically. However, theologians despite their differences on the subject are united in one thing, none of them ever advocated that the souls of these unbaptized infants entered into the reward of heaven. Their arguments have delt with essentially what type of punishment or lack there of do they experience. Is it a state of “natural happiness” or is there some form of privation or actual punishment. Surprisingly none of the major theologians weighing in on the subject said anything about Limbo being a separate state apart from Heaven or hell. And those theologians who did comment on “where” limbo was, placed in in hell.

 

[Church_Militant]

Teflon93,

My father was raised Catholic, converted to Protestantism, and is a much more godly person now than he was, no question. There are examples both ways. Frankly, regardless of which way people go, I am happy when they find a faith that gets them energized to do God’s work. I guess that’s my underlying point to all of this. How do we really know any one faith is “right”? You think your’s is. I think mine is. But it should be whatever works best for you.

My thoughts.The only hitch I would have with that is that if there is such a thing as objective truth then we all can’t be right, and so it behooves us to obey the Word of God and Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (2nd Timothy 2:15)

I’m glad you’re liking the exchanges. I was about ready to bow out because I thought I offended Church Militant too much. Maybe I’ll stick around a bit.

Nah…it’s fine. Who knows? Perhaps we will sharpen one another…

 

[BlessedBe]

Wow, reading through all this is making my head hurt. I can respond to the original question very simply: the answer is yes, the CC as an authority is a circular argument, just as the Bible as authority is a circular argument.

The CC is based on tradition, a tradition that comes from the Bible. There are only three possible reasons to accept the Bible as authority: personal revelation, tradition, and because it says so in the Bible. I can’t speak for personal revelation. But tradition comes from the Bible, and accepting the Bible because it says you must do so IN the Bible is about as circular as you can get.

I am NOT saying that this invalidates the CC and the Bible in any way.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Tradition doesn’t come only from the Bible–it comes from the disciples through the bible==but also apart from what is written in the bible–and it is eyewitness testimony from them.

Can anyone explain to me what is Circular about eyewitness testimony?

And what is circular about the holy spirit leading those eyewitnesses into All Truth?

What is circular about that?

Sacred Tradition was not, is not, and never will be circular.

The eyewitnesses–the disciples who from Jesus started the Catholic church and their successors are either telling the truth or not telling the truth.

There isn’t anything Circular about their testimony.

Why is it that eyewitness testimony is admisable in court–but is not admisable regarding the authority of the Catholic Church?

You can Not believe them–or not believe the people who received the Catholic Church from them–but their status as testimony to the authority of the Catholic Church is not circular–it can either be believed or disbelieved!

 

[BlessedBe]

Tradition doesn’t come only from the Bible–it comes from the disciples through the bible==but also apart from what is written in the bible–and it is eyewitness testimony from them.

…
You can Not believe them–or not believe the people who received the Catholic Church from them–but their status as testimony to the authority of the Catholic Church is not circular–it can either be believed or disbelieved!

That is fair. Point taken.

 

[Krocker]

I understand the circularity argument to go something like this: “My interpretation is right because my interpretation says that I cannot be wrong.” It doesn’t get any more circular than that. I’m not sure that circularity applies to the “tradition” stance with equal force as it does with other Catholic doctrine discussed on this thread, such as the “we were first therefore we’re right” or “we are infallible, therefore we’re right.”

 

[PC_Master]

Wow, I think you summed up the part of the Roman Catholic position that I have a problem with in a single sentence…

*“My interpretation is right because my interpretation says I cannot be wrong.”

*I think that, until Roman Catholics begin to accept the circularity of this argument, and at least try to look at things from the opposite side (in an honest fashion, not in a “straw man” ridiculous exaggeration fashion), there’s very little to be gained from these discussions.

 

[Church_Militant]

I understand the circularity argument to go something like this: “My interpretation is right because my interpretation says that I cannot be wrong.” It doesn’t get any more circular than that. I’m not sure that circularity applies to the “tradition” stance with equal force as it does with other Catholic doctrine discussed on this thread, such as the “we were first therefore we’re right” or “we are infallible, therefore we’re right.”

The problem there is that that is the weakest of arguments. The apologists that know what they are doing will not use such…however…since there is very substantial historical evidence of the origin and succession of the Catholic Church that’s not what makes a Catholic source right…however…when you move some 1500 years down the timeline and introduce new doctrines and assert that they have their roots in the early church and that they share that same interpretation, a Catholic like me will just look at you and say, ":ehh: "

As for your other point of contention…I have to look at you and go ooookkay. The problem here is that what you describe (IMO) is much more the position of the n-Cs that I have talked to. I have yet to see any real authoritative interpretation among n-Cs.

I don’t think that the Catholic position on infallibility is circular at all. At least not the one that I make for it.

 

[Krocker]

Can you (ChurchMilitant, Inkaneer, Teflon93, Joy, anyone else) run me through the Catholic “tradition” analysis, for example, for immaculate conception and/or purgatory? I picked those two because I think it’s pretty safe to say the Bible says little (or, depending on your interpretation, nothing) about them and they must rely fairly significantly on early church fathers/tradition. Maybe that’s too much of an assumption and let me know if you disagree. But, in any event, I’m curious from which apostle was the doctrine passed down, when was it first dicussed at the church-leader level, when was it found to be “official” doctrine, has it changed over the years, etc.

I don’t have a problem with the use of tradition to clarify (or even add to) scripture, but I would think at least the same type of historical accuracy and verifiability would be required to rise to the level of official doctrine. I think I could be swayed on this point if there is a clear, documented lineage from the time of Christ. Can you guys/gals help?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I don’t have a problem with the use of tradition to clarify (or even add to) scripture, but I would think at least the same type of historical accuracy and verifiability would be required to rise to the level of official doctrine. I think I could be swayed on this point if there is a clear, documented lineage from the time of Christ. Can you guys/gals help?

I suppose it starts with the idea that if the first Eve played a role in the fall, then it seems the New Eve played a role in the redemption-- using the Old Adam / New Adam analogy.

For example, St. Irenaeus wrote in 189 AD:

Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin…having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, became the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. (Against Heresies, 4:22:2-4)

Chronologically, it could be remembered that Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who in turn was taught by the Apostle John himself-- so I don’t feel its fair to say that this is the same as a circular argument. It’s more of a continuum in my opinion.

This may show that the early Christians recognized that Mary played a part in the redemption (howbeit subordinate to Christ). This could also then open the door for other things to be clearly expounded upon as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

I don’t have a problem with the use of tradition to clarify (or even add to) scripture, but I would think at least the same type of historical accuracy and verifiability would be required to rise to the level of official doctrine. I think I could be swayed on this point if there is a clear, documented lineage from the time of Christ. Can you guys/gals help?

Hello Krocker,

I have a simple question that every Protestant I have asked has either avoided answering or refused to answer (changing the subject, of course).

From the postings of yours I have read, you seem like a reasonable person…so if you don’t mind, here it is:

Where in Scripture does it say that the Bible is the be-all, end-all book for (take your pick) a) Chrisitianity; b) being a Christian, and c) what constitutes Christian dogma ??

All I can find (historically) is the Church which was called Christian initially developed an oral Tradition through the original Apostles who laid hands on those (and taught them) who they discerned worthy of the title of ‘Episcopos’ or Bishop.

I find many references (in St Paul’s letters and in the Gospels) of ‘other things’ being taught or explained to the Apostles by Jesus, but, dang! no reference to some new fangled series of books that will be printed together 14 some centuries after the death and resurrection of our Lord.

To quote someone whom you are quite familiar with:

“I think I could be swayed on this point” of BELIEVING YOUR PREMISE “if there is a clear, documented” proof that your personal, fallible interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

How about it guy/gal??

Can you answer that question for me?

Robert

 

[rad314]

If I had to offer a single quick reply – and that’s what I feel compelled to do – I would suggest Karl Keatings’ ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism’. You’ll find an outstanding chapter or two on this topic.

 

[pneuma07]

in any event, I’m curious from which apostle was the doctrine passed down, when was it first dicussed at the church-leader level, when was it found to be “official” doctrine, has it changed over the years, etc.

I don’t have a problem with the use of tradition to clarify (or even add to) scripture, but I would think at least the same type of historical accuracy and verifiability would be required to rise to the level of official doctrine. I think I could be swayed on this point if there is a clear, documented lineage from the time of Christ. Can you guys/gals help?

Hi Krocker.

 Both the essential points you touch here and your  fine positive attitude allow  IMHO  for  general remarks, about which here are my two cents.

We believe we receive through the Church the Christian truths. The harmony which exists and has to exist among Scripture ( written Word of God), Tradition ( which contains Word of God) and Magisterium ( servant of the Word of God) is illustrated in the documents of the Vatican II Council, namely in the Costitution “Dei Verbum” on Divine Revelation.

As for how Sacred Tradition (a concept as beautiful as it is essential and not immediate ) should be considered, I guess we can safely say first what it is not exclusively: it is not simply “oral teachings” passed alongside Scripture as a sort of parallel more indefinite channel, it is not simply a set of writings by Church Fathers and
magisterial documents ( you can rather say that these textual documents “witness” to Sacred Tradition). Tradition is something more and greater than that. As one possible way to positively see it, Tradition is the life of the Church and within the Church, considered as the channel of the conservation and transmission of the whole of the Deposit of the faith received from the Apostles and of the explanations and developments about the Deposit.

So, Sacred Scripture could be recognized as such by the Church since She would possess and She “would live” more than that ( among which certainly the means to properly understand and teach the recognized Scripture). Scripture was then proposed as faithful inspired witness to the faith, binding and normative for any future generation. Since then, Scripture “controls” the Church and the development of the doctrines, while being enlightened and explained by the Church.

As the Church acknowledged Scripture as such, so She acknowledges in the Sacred Texts the doctrines She preaches. She does not receive Her faith through Scripture ( She received it through the Apostles ) which is not the ultimate only source.

Nevertheless, having accepted a “control” by Scripture, the Church teachings have substantial links to it. Even the doctrines which can less easily be considered as explanations witnessed to by the Holy Text, are connected to it in the framework of what is called the “analogy of faith” (Rm 12:6, “κατα την αναλογιαν της πιστεως - katà ten analogian tes pisteos” , a concept that is, unscripturally , generally reduced in reformed discourse to the “analogy of Scripture”. )
The Cathechism illustrates it briefly like this: *By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. *

What are your opinions ?

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t have a problem with the use of tradition to clarify (or even add to) scripture, but I would think at least the same type of historical accuracy and verifiability would be required to rise to the level of official doctrine. I think I could be swayed on this point if there is a clear, documented lineage from the time of Christ. Can you guys/gals help?

Tradition relies upon continuity. It is not subject to textual criticism as Scripture is; so the methods of verification will not be the same. Reading the ECFs gives a pretty good overview of it; for example, the Mass Justin Martyr details in the 2nd century is quite recognizable in the Mass of today. One can read the extant ECFs for hints of these practices.

In the Protestant definition, all of the various ecumenical and Church councils are Tradition. These are well-documented; it’s a whole academic industry in and of itself and there are a number of general surveys of it available.

Where you go wrong is in looking for a “clear, documented lineage”. You have to recall that Christianity was persecuted throughout her early history, especially during the 1st century. Written records are therefore spotty from this time. This is the gap exploited by heretics and schismatics throughout the centuries.

This gap is also not unusual—you may be surprised to note that all of the extant works we have of the classical world would fit on a couple of library shelves. And yet we firmly believe Greek and Rome existed; indeed, we claim to know a fair amount about each.

 

[Krocker]

Rbt Southwell,

You wrote: “Where in Scripture does it say that the Bible is the be-all, end-all book for (take your pick) a) Chrisitianity; b) being a Christian, and c) what constitutes Christian dogma ??”

Reply: It doesn’t. If you’ve read my earlier posts, you would see that I’m not a sola scriptura guy, nor are most Protestants (I hear this a lot, but I would say it’s akin to Protestants calling Catholics “Mary worshipers” – it’s just not a fair characterization). I believe that the Bible should be the starting point because of it’s historical verifiability and the extreme proximity of its writings to the life of Jesus. If “tradition” has similar qualities, I will consider it – hence my question. My concern is equating tradition with Bibilical text if it does not have the same or similar qualities. It is undisputed that in verifying the historical correctness of writings the closer in proximity to the events being written about, the more accurate a writng will be, being free from legend and other outside pressures for example. This can be further bolstered by the number of copies of the writing and by comparing those writings to see what kinds of “changes” have been made over time. Again, Biblical scriptures are unprecedented in this regard. So, I don’t think it is logically unreasonable to start with Biblical writings even if the Bible doesn’t say, “these particular writings by these authors are inspired and this is all you need to know about me and salvation.” It just makes sense. If tradition can be similarly verified, great. If it can’t, then I have a problem making it equal to the Bible. That was my question (and it wasn’t rhetorical).

 

[Teflon93]

Krocker-

Do you have a link to some evidence for the “Most Protestants do not hold to sola scriptura” claim?

I think this would be news to most Protestants, if our prior threads are any indication. Sola fide and sola scriptura being the primary legacy of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, it would be nothing short of shocking that most Protestants today would no longer hew to sola scriptura.