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

[Teflon93]

The circular reasoning is that we can understand Christ better two millennia after his ministry by reading Scripture written in a language other than that he spoke, absent the context of his everyday presence and the traditions in which he lived, on the basis of the interpretation of men who lived a millennium-and-a-half after his ministry who actively opposed the tradition handed down from the men who walked with Jesus and learned at his knee.

That, my friends, is circular reasoning writ large.

 

[reluctant_saint]

Is anyone else here familiar with N. R. Hanson or Thomas Kuhn? Both of these men totally revolutionized the concept of science. For instance, schools are beginning to no longer teach the “scientific method” largely due to Thomas Kuhn’s concept of scientific paradigms.

 Anyway, N. R. Hanson's main achievement was demonstrating that there is no such thing as objective scientific observation. Kuhn carried that thought further and said that there is no such thing as objective science. Both these men thought that all our observation is influenced by the theories we already believe in. Kuhn's concept of a paradigm is a sort of framework which the scientific community choses to follow in order to solve scientific dilemmas. Paradigms are not considered to be true or false. They're just frameworks. Kuhn called individual paradigms incommensurable. That is, we cannot judge one paradigm by the standards of another paradigm. According to Kuhn, we have no objective way of determining if a paradigm is good or bad. To make matters worse, it is impossible to not adhere to some paradigm at all times.

 Now, the way I see it, this whole argument here is based one two competing paradigms. Here's the situation that arises. Both sides accuse the other side of contradictions. For instance, Protestants accuse Catholics of contradicting the Bible. The problem it that Catholics only contradict the Bible if you are looking at them in a Protestant framework. Likewise, Catholics accuse Protestants of contradicting the Bible, but again, Protestants only contradict the Bible if you are viewing them in a Catholic framework.

 As far as history goes, Protestants see the whole of Christian doctrine as being complete with the Apostles. Since doctrine was complete with the Apostles, anything added to that doctrine is heretical. (I should note that not all Protestants accept this, but it seems to be the view being expressed by those in this forum.) Catholics, on the other see, see doctrine as developing. To them, revelation is complete, but the doctrine which explains that revelation is not necessarily so. Thus both Protestants and Catholics will accuse each other of not fallowing the early church, namely because both of them mean different things when they say the “early church.”For Protestants, the Bible is the only true access we have to the early church. For Catholics, the Bible is an incomplete picture of the early church. We need other sources in order to understand it. The question then becomes, who's following the real early church? Any discussion of this question is going to have to take place on neutral terms, or else each side is going to have to agree on one framework to work in.

 A Protestant cannot tell a Catholic that the Bible is the only source of authority, because a Catholic does not think the Bible is sufficient. A Catholic cannot tell a Protestant that the Bible is not the only source of authority for the exact opposite reason.

 For instance, the Bible says there is an office of bishop. What does a bishop do? The Bible doesn't say. Catholics will say we must then look to other early church sources to know the answer. Protestants will say we must determine from the Bible how the early church was, and then we must fit the office of bishop into that church. Protestants will accuse Catholics are using uninspired material to interpret inspired material. Catholics will accuse Protestants of begging the question. That is, from a Catholic perspective, Protestants determine the office of the bishop by the structure of the early church, when in fact the office of a bishop is part of that structure. Thus any attempt to show the structure of the early church without already knowing the position of a bishop will be an incomplete structure. Since the structure is incomplete, we have no way of determining is our understanding of that structure is correct. 

 Now, I think I am going to leave off here. I namely wanted to to demonstrate the point that I think both sides of this argument have difficulties they have to work out. I am definitely on one side myself, but I'd rather not get into this argument right now.

 The fact remains that in order to show that a certain perspective is false, you cannot compare it to your own perspective. You must show the other side is false from the inside out.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Hey, just so you know, I didn’t go anywhere. I’ve read quite a bit of the responses since my own, and thank you for them. I’m just giving them a lot of thought as to how to repond to them. I’ll try to get back to responding later…

Thanks

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Hey, just so you know, I didn’t go anywhere. I’ve read quite a bit of the responses since my own, and thank you for them. I’m just giving them a lot of thought to how to reply to them. I’ll try to get back to responding later…

Thanks

 

[JJR1453]

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Hello again PC,

I do see your point in regards to the modern day RCC, who outside the RCC is to say “Yes, the RCC is in fact correct and they do hold the authority”. Do you really believe this to be possible?

So may scripture shed light on the accuracy of the RCC and, subsequently, all other churches? Scripture being that objective “outside” measuring stick? Whos to say that scripture is any authority, or has any credibility? In short, the Church does. It is this exact Church that wrote and compiled scripture so you see the Church and scripture go hand and hand…But that begs another question, to what “Church” is this refering to?? This is where scripture sheds light, as Christ promised that he would not leave us even until the end of the world.

So if the RCC is not this early Apostolic Church then what church is? I assume you believe Christ held to his promise.

I dont see how it could be any of the Protestant denominations as their beginnings start in the 16th century. Where was Christ and the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truths during the times of the early Apostolic Church thru to the reformation??

That also begs another question I suppose…does the HS ever take vacation time?? The protestants must believe so

^^^Just a bit of comedy to lightin the mood, no offense intended

God bless,

 

[epostle]

Let’s clarify – he said he would build a church (“ekklesia”), which is a gathering of “called out” followers.

How can you clarify anything with a half truth?

I don’t see the papacy, hierarchy, sacraments, or infallibility in the early church.

The evidence is certainly there. But only if you want to see it.

I see priesthood in the sense of there being some who are gifted by God to be ministers of the word. Likewise, some are gifted to be apostles.

That’s good. You recognize a hierarchy.

Teaching authority is a matter of being in line with the truth, and to ensure that the truth (not a hierarchy) was maintained, persons such as Paul wrote to churches explaining things and clarifying matters that were unclear.

SPOT THE FALSE VERSE!!!

*1 Timothy 3:15 KJV
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 ASV
but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 ESV
if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 NIV
but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.NIV

1 Timothy 3:15 DIV
but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves according to what I wrote to you, the pillar and ground of the truth. *

The papacy simply isn’t present in any early text.

This statement hurts me because they are my spiritual heritage and members of my family. The first 30 popes were martyred. That’s like me telling my Jewish friend her grandparents never died in the holocaust because they were never really her grandparents. The crypts of the popes from that time period can still be seen today in the Roman Catacombs, and you are telling me there were no popes.

The textual evidence of the papacy is mountainous from the first three centuries. What is lacking is the understanding of development in some kind of historical context. Anyone who makes an honest examination of the copious “texts” of the first three centuries will discover that all that was formally taught then is the same as is taught now.

It is impossible for the Church to change or invent a doctrine. Develop, yes, but never change. In none of these texts will you find reformist opinions. References to the papacy (using the bible as footnotes) show development of the papacy, but to say it “simply isn’t present” is a flat out denial of hard cold facts, not to mention scripture itself. Tradition is a living thing, and when you rip that out of God’s overall revelation, the bible is reduced to a reference text to back up individual opinions. Truth cannot be relative.

Sacraments as such are not (though baptism certainly is, and marriage surely is, but they’re not called sacraments or anything like that).

Are you saying that what is in the Bible that did not yet exist for three hundred years as we know it, disproves sacraments and the papacy as there was no centralized authority to approve of the canon of the New Testament??? Or are you saying the Bible as we know it after the holy books were compiled disproves the authority of the very men who did so? Please articulate.

If you say that the Catholic Church veered from the truth sometime after the Bible was complied, please indicate the year or name the council that formally taught an error on faith or morals. Be specific. But I don’t think you can find any. You might find opinions on snippets from the early church fathers, but watch out for those “Christian” web sites whose color theme is black and red. Some even feature base drum beats, to boost the adrenalin rush.

 

[agangbern]

If the RCC is false, what it teaches doesn’t matter. You can’t justify the RCC with its own teachings. You need an external source. Scripture could somewhat be considered external, as it is at the least external to today’s church governing bodies. None of them have had direct (name removed by moderator)ut into what scripture says.

OK, you want an external source, and Scripture is that source. But the said Scripture, as mentioned by Church Militant in post#6, declared that the Church is the pillar and mainstay of the truth. So, even that external source assents to that fact. It is not circular at all.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

With scripture, I ultimately believe in it because the holy spirit has confirmed to me that it is valid.

How exactly does one do this though?

This comes to this point…

You need an external source. Scripture could somewhat be considered external, as it is at the least external to today’s church governing bodies. None of them have had direct (name removed by moderator)ut into what scripture says.

They had to translate the Scriptures though.

How does one do this and know with any certainy that they are accurate translations-- without recourse to any other external source?

You claim that he was speaking of the RCC based on an interpretation by the same entity! This is the circular logic that fails to help any such discussion as this.

Me personally, I don’t think it’s ciruclar. Rather the trajectory of the logic involved leads us back through history along the paper trail of both Christian and non-Christian writings to Christ himself.

For example, on the basis of non-Christian writings alone, one can validate that the early Christians were reported to believe in Christ as God-- based on the reports and criticisms levelled against Christianity by non-Christian writers. Although Josephus’ writings may have been compromised, other non-Christian witnesses to give a clear testmony as recorded here

Getting closer to home, it becomes even more abundantly clear, to me anyway, that once one actually examines that which the early Christians said of themselves, they most certainly do appear to hold views which are amazingly similar to modern Catholicism.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Ok - I had to take some time off to think about this, and some questions have come to mind:

Could God not have preserved His revelation to us?

Could He not have done so through fallible people?

Does the fact that His Word came to us through a church that was perhaps slowly falling into error mean we can’t trust that God’s Word is preserved in the canon that resulted?

Does the fact that the canon came from the CC mean that it couldn’t have come from anyone else with the same results?

Were not most of the books unanimously accepted as canon?

And were not some of those men involved in the process uncertain as to the canonizability (is that even a word?) of some of the books in question?

Peace

 

[Teflon93]

Ok - I had to take some time off to think about this, and some questions have come to mind:

Could God not have preserved His revelation to us?

Could He not have done so through fallible people?

Does the fact that His Word came to us through a church that was perhaps slowly falling into error mean we can’t trust that God’s Word is preserved in the canon that resulted?

Does the fact that the canon came from the CC mean that it couldn’t have come from anyone else with the same results?

Were not most of the books unanimously accepted as canon?

And were not some of those men involved in the process uncertain as to the canonizability (is that even a word?) of some of the books in question?

Peace

You might recall that infallibility is a function of office, not person.

The Pope is a fallible person. He is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals, and then because the Holy Spirit protects the Church.

If you think about this, it is a necessary component if Scripture and apostolic tradition are valid.

Otherwise, no one but eyewitnesses to Christ’s ministry can possibly claim to what it was he taught and did and they’re long dead.

You cannot believe Scripture to have been inspired, much less inerrant, without acknowledging infallibility on the part of the Church which provided it to you, both in the composition and in the discernment of the canon.

It is this which the alleged sola scripturists cannot reconcile, and therefore avoid thinking about.

 

[FCEGM]

Ok - I had to take some time off to think about this, and some questions have come to mind:

Could God not have preserved His revelation to us?

Why would He not preserve His Self-revelation in and through Christ Jesus? If He wouldn’t, why would the Son have become Incarnate in the first place? God did preserve His Self-revelation so as to bring man to a true knowledge of Him so as to effect man’s transformation in and through their incorporation into Christ.

Could He not have done so through fallible people?

He does do so through fallible people. Those fallible people, however, are preserved from error when teaching the conserved Self-Revelation of Christ.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a46.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a44.htm

Does the fact that His Word came to us through a church that was perhaps slowly falling into error mean we can’t trust that God’s Word is preserved in the canon that resulted?

His Church cannot fall into error, thus your question is moot; and it cannot fall into error because the Church is the Incarnation of Christ extended in time and place. This article may help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a45.htm

Does the fact that the canon came from the CC mean that it couldn’t have come from anyone else with the same results?

One deals with what IS, in this instance the manner in which God has already chosen to bring His Self-revelation to mankind. He could have chosen that the Son not become Incarnate and perhaps to save man by a simple FIAT of His own, instead of the FIAT of Mary’s acceptance of His divine will. So, because it is through the Catholic Church that the canon came to be, one must pray for the insight to accept this as one reason among many to assent to the Catholic Faith.

Were not most of the books unanimously accepted as canon?

And were not some of those men involved in the process uncertain as to the canonizability (is that even a word?) of some of the books in question?

I think you will find these articles helpful in answering your questions regarding the canon:

catholic-legate.com/articles/w-word5.htm (NT)

catholic-legate.com/articles/otcanon.html

 

[Church_Militant]

Ok - I had to take some time off to think about this, and some questions have come to mind:

:clapping: Wise of you JTBC!

Could God not have preserved His revelation to us?

Of course, and He did.

Could He not have done so through fallible people?

Yes, and He did, using St. Peter and the other apostles and then conveying it down through the early church to this very day. This is precisely what the Catholic Church has taught all along.

Does the fact that His Word came to us through a church that was perhaps slowly falling into error mean we can’t trust that God’s Word is preserved in the canon that resulted?

Here’s where you and I have to talk…By this I have to think that you are inferring that the Catholic Church was “slowly falling into error” and yet I can find no evidence to support this, and it really is as separate related topic that needs its own thread. In order for me to accept your premise, (which I do not) you would have to prove to me conclusively that such a falling into error really did occur and I have discussed this many times and have yet to see anything that passes for a substantive case. Usually it involves a lot of rhetoric and propaganda and not historically verifiable facts.

Does the fact that the canon came from the CC mean that it couldn’t have come from anyone else with the same results?

This is a “what if”, and my answer is, but it didn’t. Since that is the case it is unwise and fruitless to even bother with such a train of thought. “What ifs” are fiction IMO.

Were not most of the books unanimously accepted as canon?

This article might offer some serious food for thought. Old Testament Canon (Fathers* )

And were not some of those men involved in the process uncertain as to the canonizability (is that even a word?) of some of the books in question?

Read that article and then you tell me. The fact is that the early church writings cited in that article show that there was a 73 books canon even the. From what I have found the Church did not dogmatically affirm this until the Council of Trent because until that time there had been no serious attack upon it.

I hope that helps, but this really does need its own thread.

 

[reluctant_saint]

Ok - I had to take some time off to think about this, and some questions have come to mind:

Could God not have preserved His revelation to us?

Could He not have done so through fallible people?

Does the fact that His Word came to us through a church that was perhaps slowly falling into error mean we can’t trust that God’s Word is preserved in the canon that resulted?

Does the fact that the canon came from the CC mean that it couldn’t have come from anyone else with the same results?

Were not most of the books unanimously accepted as canon?

And were not some of those men involved in the process uncertain as to the canonizability (is that even a word?) of some of the books in question?

Peace

The question then arises of whether God would chose a fallible or an infallible source to preserve his infallible text. Still, I think you’re taking this in the wrong direction.

We know that the canon that the Early Church Fathers came up with included the apocrypha (or deuterocanon, depending on what side of the argument your on). This, then, means that if we take the Protestant canon to be correct, we cannot really say that that canon came from the Fathers. Of course, this causes no problem for Catholics.

What this means is that when a Catholic accepts the Catholic canon, he’s taking it on the authority of the Church. When a Protestant accepts the Protestant canon, he’s relying that God has preserved the truth despite the Church Fathers. I don’t believe either of these positions commits a circular argument, but each of them does make assumptions of how God would decide to pass this revelation on to us. From the Catholic perspective, God used oral tradition just as much as written tradition to correctly convey revelation. From a Protestant perspective, the written tradition is the only source capable of this. Oddly enough, this is the exact same argument that was taking place within Judaism at the time of Christ. The Pharisees accepted an oral tradition that accompanied the Law. The Sadducees did not.

There is one more thing we have to take into consideration. How accurate is the Bible we have today? We know that many things were added to the Bible on top of the originals. For instance, after the Lord’s Prayer, modern Bibles no longer include the verse, “For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever.” Scriptural study has shown that this verse did not exist in the original, and it appears to have been added as a gloss in ( I think) the 4th century.

For another instance, the story of the woman caught in adultery was not included in the original Gospel of John. There is evidence, however, that it might have originally been a part of the Gospel of Luke. (I’m not sure how strong that evidence is, as I have not studied it in depth.)

There are still other things like this in the Bible. There was even a book written recently about additions to the original Gospel texts. (But seeing as to how I have not read the book, I shall not recommend it.) This causes a problem for both Catholics and Protestants. The Bible, in this light, does not necessarily reflect the most “ancient” church. Please don’t misunderstand me. I believe 100% that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but this is something I take on faith. The Catholic must accept on faith that even if there were additions made to the early Bible, it is the Church that has the responsibility of determining how to handle those additions. (In the case of the Our Father, the added parts have been omitted. In the case of the adulterous woman, it has not been removed and is still seen as inspired in spite of the possibility that it may not be original.) For a Protestant, he must accept on faith that the Bible he believes in is, in fact, original. To say, for instance, that the Church Fathers are not infallible, but that the additions they made to the Bible are infallible, is something I don’t think any Protestant is willing to say.

 

[reluctant_saint]

So we see, both sides have to take the Bible on faith. Not to say they have to take the entire Bible on faith. For instance, secular scholars will often say that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are the two most historically accurate books of the New Testament. Still, the claim, as a historical claim and not a religious claim, that the Bible represents the most ancient church cannot be taken as historically accurate. True, both sides of the argument agree that from a religious perspective the Bible is the work of the most ancient church, but each side claims this for different reasons. The Catholic accepts this claim more or less because it is a part of his Catholic faith. The Protestant accepts this claim because he personally believes its true.

This means that when a Protestant tries to use the Bible to disprove the Catholic Church, he is in fact trying to disprove the very reason why Catholics believe in the Bible in the first place. One cannot simply say, “Oh, since we both believe the Bible is inspired, we’ll use that as common ground.” If a Protestant dissuades the Catholic away from the Catholic Church, then that common ground falls out from under the Catholic. In short, if a Protestant were to prove that the Catholic Church and the Bible are incompatible, the Catholic has no more reason to become a Protestant as he does to become an atheist. For a Catholic, when you take away the Church, you run the risk of taking away the Bible also.

Likewise, when a Catholic tries to disprove Protestantism, he might also be calling into question the Protestant’s faith in the Bible. The Protestant believes in the Bible out of personal faith. From that perspective, a Protestant does not want to be told that he needs an authority to believe in the Bible, because he already knows that he does not need one. Therefore, the Catholic claim that we need to believe in the Church in order to believe in the Bible will not hold for a Protestant. If a Protestant believes in the Church at all, it will be because his belief in the Bible leads him to it.

Okay, so there’s my assessment. I think this whole conversation has gone the wrong way. In order for Catholics and Protestants to come to an understanding, both of us have to learn to use each other’s language. We need to assess each other from the inside out. It does no good to ask, “Why do you believe in the Bible?” or “Why do you believe in Church authority.” Both of these are matters of faith.

Yet, even as I write all this, something doesn’t seem quite right. I feel like I have missed a step somewhere. I’d be happy if somebody could tell me if I my argument didn’t hold water. For some odd reason, I don’t like my own assessment of the situation. I’ll have to be thinking this over myself.

In the mean time, God bless both Catholics and Protestants. I suppose I should also throw in the Orthodox. God bless them too.

 

[Teflon93]

I think what you’re missing is your otherwise cogent analysis is history. It matters which Church is the one Christ founded. While the Orthodox may quarrel with the Catholic Church in this regard, the Protestants are simply not in the same league coming as they did 1,500 years late to the party and armed only with what they inherited from the Catholic Church.

Protestants also suffer from the disadvantage that, unlike Catholic and Orthodox, there is simply no unity whatsoever to be found within Protestantism—it doesn’t exist.

Without unity, there can be no discussion of authority and precious little of tradition.

May God bless all Christians, and particularly those who must strive to stay on the path to the narrow gate bereft of the seven sacraments Christ instituted for us for that very purpose.

 

[reluctant_saint]

I think what you’re missing is your otherwise cogent analysis is history. It matters which Church is the one Christ founded. While the Orthodox may quarrel with the Catholic Church in this regard, the Protestants are simply not in the same league coming as they did 1,500 years late to the party and armed only with what they inherited from the Catholic Church.

Teflon, I think you are absolutely right, but the thing is, for most Protestants, history has no significance. One Protestant I asked about the Early Church Fathers responded by saying, “What does it matter what they said?” As far as (some/most) Protestants are concerned, the Church Fathers were all heretics. We can understand the Bible better than they did. That was the point I was trying to bring out above.

I tend to take a holistic approach to religion. Catholics believe in Scripture plus Tradition. Protestants believe in just Scripture. As I said, this was the same thing going on between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. I am somewhat skeptical, however, that one side can convince the other side of its validity. Any historical argument that you and I present that shows that the Catholic Church is the true Church will be immediately discarded by the Protestants, who see history as being insignificant compared to revelation. Likewise, any Biblical argument the a Protestant uses to show the Catholic Church is false will be dismissed by the Catholics, who look at the argument from a historical perspective beyond the Scripture itself.

I absolutely agree with Cardinal Newman who said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” I simply don’t know if it’s possible to convince somebody of the significance of history.

 

[Teflon93]

I absolutely agree with Cardinal Newman who said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” I simply don’t know if it’s possible to convince somebody of the significance of history.

That is an excellent point, and one which conforms to my experience.

For this reason, within our parish’s ecumenical efforts, we emphasize the experiential as well as the historical case for Catholicism.

I’m reminded of Father Groeschel, who at our Eucharistic Congress several months back spoke of the Pentecostal women who would come to his church on Thursdays because they could feel Jesus’ presence there. Historical argument or theological argument likely wouldn’t have impressed them; what did was feeling the presence of Christ dwelling within the church.

Still, there are no small numbers of Protestants to whom history matters, and who will hear its call and eventually come to the Church if only the evidence is laid before them.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Well, perhaps we have gotten a little off topic here, but it is helpful to see your insight into the differences.

You may see some irony in this, but I believe not everything is as it seems, and that is why I am distrustful:

The CC taught me the Bible was Gods Word. Gods Word seems to contradict the CC. The CC decided the canon of Scripture.
And around I go…

All I can say is things are not always as they seem, and I know Satan is out to lead as many astray as possible. Admittedly, I even have to distrust my own past experience to get to where I am right now. Also, I do find Catholic arguments convincing (or I never would have been Catholic to begin with ), however, as long as I can read and have a Bible, I will always be troubled by verses such as:

1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils…

***3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, ***

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not"

God no longer dwells in temples made by human hands (Acts 17:24).

Now, I know the forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats wasn’t the same as the CC situation, but really, what is the difference? If it was wrong for them to be doing it (in a different way and at a different level of course) then why is it ok for the CC even if the situation isn’t identical?

And when I read about the desert and the secret chambers I am reminded of my own “desert experiences” where I thought I had encountered Jesus and my own devotion to eucharistic adoration where I beheld Him in the tabernacle (secret chambers) when God no longer dwells in man-made temples…

Are my fears the product of an associative problem I have? Or are my fears legit when I encounter such passages? I don’t believe what is contained w/in scripture is dead for our times. I don’t see it as merely an historical text that is a freeze-frame look at particular circumstances in a particular time in history. I believe there are lessons to learn from it, and I am very hesitant to dismiss such passages as merely historical and isolated instances that don’t apply to us today in our own circumstances.

Maybe my own reasoning of believing the bible but not the church is the circle I am stuck in, or maybe I’m just missing a piece of the puzzle, but I doubt I will ever be at peace anywhere at this point - Catholic or otherwise. If I remain Catholic, my conscience will forever be troubled when I read scripture. If I join the Mennonite church I’ve been aspiring to, my conscience will still be forever troubled for having left what was once heaven on earth to me - or at least, in my perception - whether it was based on truth or not I have no idea.

Thank You

Thanks for your help. I’m getting off topic, so, I’ll probably have to start a new thread if I’m going to discuss this further.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

All I can say is things are not always as they seem, and I know Satan is out to lead as many astray as possible. Admittedly, I even have to distrust my own past experience to get to where I am right now. Also, I do find Catholic arguments convincing (or I never would have been Catholic to begin with ), however, as long as I can read and have a Bible, I will always be troubled by verses such as:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils…

This is more of a warning against the gnostic heretics which Peter and Paul had to combat against as they spread the gospel. The gnostics were attempting to synchetize the gospel messsage and rejected the Christian teachings of the incarnation of Christ for example. Some gnostics in Peter’s and Paul’s time came to the concusion to Jesus could not be God because he had flesh-- something which the gnostics believed was inherently evil.

Consequently, here in the “later days” we do indeed see a re-emergence of some variations of this gnostic heresy in the form of Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and various other “churches” (such as some segments of the United Church) which explicitely deny the divinity of Christ. In this sense, these heretics have indeed given heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils-- claiming to know God but denying the power therein, insisting that Christ was not God after all.

***Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, ***

But the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. It is one of our sacraments for that matter-- in fact, we insist that people who have sex must be married before doing so lest they commit a mortal sin. The gnostics of Peter and Paul’s time, however, really did forbid people to marry-- declaring all flesh evil they felt that marriage perpetuated the evils of the flesh and obstained from marriage because of this.

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not"

There is an interesting point on this that I have to look up. I will come back on this one. But I think it’s generally well known that Christ not only lives in heaven but also lives in us by the Holy Spirit too.

God no longer dwells in temples made by human hands (Acts 17:24).

Indeed, the Church is a temple without walls…

Now, I know the forbidding to marry and abstaining from meats wasn’t the same as the CC situation, but really, what is the difference?

The apostle Paul had no problem abstaining from meat-- and he did not think he was heeding the council of seducing spirits when doing so either. So too in the case of Daniel the prophet, who fasted from meat and wine for weeks in order to me more prepared for God’s answer to his prayer.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

This is more of a warning against the gnostic heretics which Peter and Paul had to combat against as they spread the gospel.

See what I mean? Why is it that you see this ONLY as a warning against the gnostics? WHY doesn’t this also apply to the CC? Btw, I meant this to tie into the next verse I cited about forbidding marriage and eating meat to which you said:

But the Catholic Church does not forbid marriage.

It does in the priesthood, or does that not count?

The gnostics of Peter and Paul’s time, however, really did forbid people to marry-- declaring all flesh evil they felt that marriage perpetuated the evils of the flesh and obstained from marriage because of this.

So, you are saying this verse of scripture only applies to the gnostics to the degree they forbade marriage and not to other circumstances of forbidding it currently? Why is that? Isn’t it clear from this verse that the forbidding of marriage is a “doctrine of the devil”?

But I think it’s generally well known that Christ not only lives in heaven but also lives in us by the Holy Spirit too.

Right. He lives in heaven and in us - neither of which are temples made with human hands. However, tabernacles (like the little gold boxes in a Catholic church) are.

The apostle Paul had no problem abstaining from meat-- and he did not think he was heeding the council of seducing spirits when doing so either. So too in the case of Daniel the prophet, who fasted from meat and wine for weeks in order to me more prepared for God’s answer to his prayer.

Surely, however, were they commanded to do so under pain of mortal sin? Did Paul abstain b/c he was commanded to by someone or b/c of his love for his weaker brothers? What is the point of commanding someone to abstain from something that in and of itself is not evil? To teach obedience? Isn’t love more important than obedience? Isn’t motive more important? You can tell me every day not to eat meat or I’ll go to hell and if I do it just to avoid hell I’ll probably end up there anyway. Love is more perfect than obedience. Obedience without love is an empty work.

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

Yes - false humility. Such practices can incite pride. I believe that is why instruments of self-mortification are now discouraged.

The point is that those who love God may benefit from such man-made rules only as far as submission/obedience WITH LOVE can carry it - but to the average layman in the CC such rules give one a false sense of security: I’ll just do what the authoritative church tells me to and I’m sure to go to heaven… I know its not like that for everyone - but there are far too many. Holiness of life is mostly absent. The way is narrow and few find it.

I think one of the reasons few find it is b/c of such man-made rules. Those who truly love God do not need such rules. Unlovingly following rules does not bring about holiness but is more likely to produce lukewarmness and false security.

This is one of the reasons I likewise question the ultra-conservative Mennonite church I’ve been visiting. If we are dead to the world and alive in Christ what is the point of the restrictions, rules, prescribed fasts, etc.? If something is a sin, the church should say so. I’m not opposed to that. And people should follow it, not blindly, but with a seeking spirit - to learn WHY they should not follow it. However, to impose unecessary observances like fasting, abstinence, Holy Days of Obligation, chastity - does no good for a soul unless they have a personal reason for doing so. In the church I visit the members also have no TV, radios, internet etc… It’s all the same to me. Although I agree that those things have more harm than good, I don’t think commanding us to avoid them is the answer. Not everyone will fall into sin by using the internet. Some will, however, fall into sin by fasting (through pride). It’s all an individual thing. What is good for one could be poison to another.

The church needs to lift a person out of the muck of sinfulness and make holy saints instead of covering up our filthiness with rules that can produce self-righteousness and a false sense of security.

Peace