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

[FCEGM]

. . .Ultimately, even the Catholic Church teaches that there is salvation outside the church (albeit, much more difficult to arrive at). I think the purpose of these forums is for those of us who see that universality of truth, but believe God has more to offer; He has a remedy to all the denomination confusion. . . .

Yes, His Catholic Church is the remedy.

But to your first point: If anyone is saved it is because of his connection to Christ in and through His Church. Some have this connection perfectly, some do not. But this doesn’t negate His mercy in reaching beyond the confines of a visible connection with the sacramental life of the Church. The Church sees the universality of truth as the means by which those who seek after it outside the visible communion with the Church as the means that Christ, through the strength of His redemption of man, employs to draw even those not fully in visible union with His Church towards the Beatific Vision. Anyone who is saved is saved, then, because of his or her connection in some way to His Church.

 

[Krocker]

Church Militant,

“There are unbelievers here as well and they have a right to their questions and our responses as well.”

Good point. No problems. I do think I would be a little turned off if I was an unbeliever and encountered some of the bickering on here though … like my Muslim or Hindu reference earlier.

“The Catholic Church does not teach anything different. I don’t know where you got that perception.”

What if the verse that speaks to me individually is contrary to an official Catholic teaching? Then it does teach something different.

“And just how many of those individuals know either the Bible or the historically verifiable writings of the Christian faith over the last 2,000 years at all, much less well enough to formulate an informed belief?”

In my experience, Protestants know the Bible at least as well as Catholics because they place supreme (but not total) importance on it, not importance equal to other writings and traditions. Also, I agree with you about prosperity gospel cults, etc. The Bible is clear that you should “sell everything”. No problems. Some Protestants have it wrong. I just don’t think that logically means all Catholics have it right.

“Really? Yet that is precisely the way n-Cs tend to operate only they use other terms for it, and though they will not express it as you have, that is exactly what they believe.”

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Anyway, I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t think Protestants say “my way or the highway,” and in fact isn’t this what is routinely criticized by Catholics, that they allow divisions within the umbrella of “Protestantism”?

Teflon93,

“Do you consider nondenominational Christians to be Protestants?”

In my experience, they are mostly “Protestant.” I do agree that the Church is collectively coming together, I just don’t think it’s all a one-way street however. I have been in Catholic services that I could have sworn were Protestant as well.

MarcoPolo,

“We should indeed be charitable when there are honest disagreements. But the reason things like Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception or the office of the Papacy are important is because they reveal Jesus more completely to us.”

That’s great and I agree. But, what if they don’t reveal Jesus any more completely to me? For example, what if I have concerns about Transubstantiation (it is the literal interpretation concern that I typically hear as a reproach against Protestantism), about the Papacy (if we literally interpret like with respect to Transubstantiation, than isn’t Peter just a “rock” – can you have metaphors sometimes, but not all the time, and when is it “right”?), about the Immaculate Conception (a “pure” Mary is not necessary for the miracle of Jesus because the Y Chromosome had to get in there somewhere, which Mary could not physically provide – the miracle was Jesus period)? I know these are very basic concerns and they may not even apply to me, but I know they are very real concerns for others. IF that is the case, then they don’t make a person “closer” to Jesus. What if that same person does become closer to Jesus by following Protestant doctrine? Is it then wrong?

 

[Teflon93]

In my experience, they are mostly “Protestant.” I do agree that the Church is collectively coming together, I just don’t think it’s all a one-way street however. I have been in Catholic services that I could have sworn were Protestant as well.

Well, that’s unfortunate, unless you were referring to those Protestant sects which model their liturgy on the Mass.

If you do see any Catholic Masses conducted by people in expensive suits and delivering hour-long homilies, please let us know so we can report them to the appropriate bishop!

 

[MarcoPolo]

But, what if they don’t reveal Jesus any more completely to me? What if that same person does become closer to Jesus by following Protestant doctrine? Is it then wrong?

Well, then of course I would say you should use context to determine when metaphors are used and when they are not. Read interpretations, including early writings of the first centuries please (some who heard the apostles preach and explain first-hand). I was responding to whether or not those things should be a focus, and yes they should be. Getting into the evidence in Scripture is another thread.

If a person comes closer to Jesus by following a Protestant doctrine, then it will be because that particular Protestant doctrine reveals something true! No problem there!

 

[Teflon93]

If a person comes closer to Jesus by following a Protestant doctrine, then it will be because that particular Protestant doctrine reveals something true! No problem there!

My wife was a pagan, became a Pentecostal, and is a Catholic.

Each step brought her closer to Christ, culminating in the Eucharist.

 

[Church_Militant]

That is WAY too deferential and open to corruption given our sinful nature.

Can you show me a passage of the Word of God that tells us that we should not show deference to those who lead and teach us in the Church, because I know of some that say we should.

I think Catholics would agree that they make mistakes, and even huge mistakes. I think the limbo issue is an example on a fringe issue. Again, you can say whatever you want about whether it was “official” or not, but it is what it is. Ask a Catholic about limbo 30 years ago and you’ll get a different answer than today. And even if it wasn’t “official,” isn’t that just an indictment on how poorly the true Catholic interpretation is being disseminated? Check out the old posts on limbo.

If by “they” you mean individual Catholics make mistakes, then I would fully agree, as would the Church, however, the case you cite is specious in that it comes down to precisely what I said. Individuals speculating and individuals making more of something than either the Word of God or the Church teaches.

Before you use that to bash the Catholic Church as “an indictment on how poorly the true Catholic interpretation is being disseminated” I would strongly suggest that you consider the era at which that belief came into being. The earliest discussion that I can find on it is from the early 4th century and so my question to you is just how do you suppose that discussion and teaching was dealt with back then? Do you suppose that St. Gregory of Nazianzus just bopped down to the Nazianzus Kinko’s and zapped twenty copies of his opinion and then had them faxed out from his office to Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and all the other bishops? Do you suppose that he called around on his cell phone to discuss this and all it’s ramifications? Obviously, he did not and since there were other more pressing issues, this tertiary speculation did not get that much attention.

The current magisterium has again made it’s teaching clear on this some 16 centuries later. Where is the problem with that? To see what the Church actually says about this teaching, I suggest that you carefully read this link.

I already know what your responses will be, so unless you’re willing to concede even a little bit, there is no reason to regurgitate

.I’d very much appreciate it if you would be more courteous and considerate (as I have sought to be) in your postings. I could, (but would not) say that same thing to you.

I do find it interesting, however, that Protestants generally believe that everyone should be entitled to interpret the Bible on their own … but apparently not Catholics. Why is this any less of an acceptable “denomination” from a Protestant perspective?

Don’t really know and am not qualified to speak for them. Perhaps you should find some and ask.

Oh, and inkaneer, to be fair not ALL Protestants believe in sola scriptura and, in fact, I would say most don’t.

Then perhaps yopu should state what you believe in that regard…

Based upon some of what you have said, then why do so many fail to consider the writings of the early church with regard to the doctrines that they held. I have found little in common between the teachings of the ECF and the modern post reformation n-C communities.

 

[Krocker]

Teflon93,

“If you do see any Catholic Masses conducted by people in expensive suits and delivering hour-long homilies, please let us know so we can report them to the appropriate bishop!”

The expensive suits I understand, but what is wrong with an hour-long homily. I enjoy those.

MarcoPolo,

“Read interpretations, including early writings of the first centuries please (some who heard the apostles preach and explain first-hand).”

I understand that, I really do. But I just don’t think the first is always the best. Can’t things get better/more defined with time? I don’t want to ruffle too many feathers here, but these are only possible examples (again, not necessarily my viewpoint): (1) earth-centric universe idea supported by the Church was clearly proven wrong, (2) immaculate conception deemed “unnecessary” for Jesus’ freedom from original sin because of chromosomal discoveries (as I mentioned earlier), (3) transubstantiation, substantiate with DNA tests for the body and blood alcohol tests for the blood. Can’t this be clarified and changed? And if not, why not?

Or if the writings of the early church fathers were so exceedingly important, why wouldn’t they be in scripture. Plus, there were lots of early writings that were not and are not considered authoritative. So how do you decide? Do you use only the ones that suit your conclusion? And, I’m fully aware that Martin Luther attempted to do this and I don’t condone it from either side, just a comment.

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon93,

“If you do see any Catholic Masses conducted by people in expensive suits and delivering hour-long homilies, please let us know so we can report them to the appropriate bishop!”

The expensive suits I understand, but what is wrong with an hour-long homily. I enjoy those.
.

In Mass, an hour-long homily (which takes place during the 1st half–the Liturgy of the Word) would cut into the time for the Eucharist (the 2nd half—the Liturgy of the Eucharist.)

The short answer is thus more time with man = less time with God!

 

[Church_Militant]

Church Militant,

“There are unbelievers here as well and they have a right to their questions and our responses as well.”

Good point. No problems. I do think I would be a little turned off if I was an unbeliever and encountered some of the bickering on here though … like my Muslim or Hindu reference earlier.

Hey, bickering happens. If you’re looking for any religious environment that is all sweetness and light, I suspect you’re on the wrong planet.

“The Catholic Church does not teach anything different. I don’t know where you got that perception.”

What if the verse that speaks to me individually is contrary to an official Catholic teaching? Then it does teach something different.

Actually, no. You fail to consider that your personal interpretation may well be wrong. Is your belief better researched/informed than that of the Catholic Church? Based upon the scenario as you have presented it, I would say that your own interpretation should be suspect and that you should do further study, including the sources upon which the Catholic teaching is based.

“And just how many of those individuals know either the Bible or the historically verifiable writings of the Christian faith over the last 2,000 years at all, much less well enough to formulate an informed belief?”

In my experience, Protestants know the Bible at least as well as Catholics because they place supreme (but not total) importance on it, not importance equal to other writings and traditions. Also, I agree with you about prosperity gospel cults, etc. The Bible is clear that you should “sell everything”. No problems. Some Protestants have it wrong. I just don’t think that logically means all Catholics have it right.

My experience has been just the opposite, especially with me personally. People who have sought to make cases against Catholic teachings have proved much less knowledgeable of the Word of God than I am, (much to their chagrin. )

Of the two choices (Catholic vs non) I will have to assert that in my experience, the Catholic teachings have proved more scriptural and in better agreement with the writings of the early church.

“Really? Yet that is precisely the way n-Cs tend to operate only they use other terms for it, and though they will not express it as you have, that is exactly what they believe.”

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Anyway, I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t think Protestants say “my way or the highway,” and in fact isn’t this what is routinely criticized by Catholics, that they allow divisions within the umbrella of “Protestantism”?

I would beg to differ, since I myself had that exact experience in two different n-C communities. In both cases the scriptural teachings were ignored or twisted to permit their practices.

 

[Teflon93]

Of the two choices (Catholic vs non) I will have to assert that in my experience, the Catholic teachings have proved more scriptural and in better agreement with the writings of the early church.I would beg to differ, since I myself had that exact experience in two different n-C communities. In both cases the scriptural teachings were ignored or twisted to permit their practices.

Let me give a tangible example:

My Pentecostal (Church of God) pastor routinely modified Christ’s words at the Last Supper to reference “juice” rather than “wine” out of deference to the Pentecostal prohibition against alcohol.

It was outrageous, all the moreso since it was obviously false, grape juice fermentation being staved off only by Mr. Welch’s pasteurization process in the 19th century.

One cannot claim to love Scripture then torture it so.

 

[MarcoPolo]

(1) earth-centric universe idea supported by the Church was clearly proven wrong, (2) immaculate conception deemed “unnecessary” for Jesus’ freedom from original sin because of chromosomal discoveries (as I mentioned earlier), (3) transubstantiation, substantiate with DNA tests for the body and blood alcohol tests for the blood. Can’t this be clarified and changed? And if not, why not?

1. The Church has never had the authority to declare anything as true except for issues of faith and morals…not the physical location of the earth. It never claimed that as unchangeable or infallible. 2) clarify this claim on the Immaculate Conception for me…I’m unfamiliar with what you speak. 3) The bread and wine retain their physical properties…a DNA test would not reveal the essence of the spiritual reality Jesus spoke of in John 6 and Matthew 26, and Paul in 1 Cor. 11.

As to the appeal to early teachings…they would have more value in that the message was less-diluted from generation to generation. Remember…no Bible till the end of the 4th century. As well, Tradition is formed when it can be seen through Church authorities speaking in one voice. If you find hertical exceptions here and there, you can tell those are not traditions…that’s how you know they are not authoritative, or they contradict an earlier Tradition that was already established. Things like Transubstantiation have been taught since the earliest, and remains so today, which is why the earliest teachings are so certain since they have remained unchanged. Certainly doctrines can develop as we understand them better, but the improved understanding never conflicts with the prior understanding.

Or if the writings of the early church fathers were so exceedingly important, why wouldn’t they be in scripture.

The writings of the early Church fathers are not in Scripture because Scripture was never intended to be the sole source of truth. In fact, if you wanted to point to a single post-Pentecostal source of truth, the answer is the Church, not the Bible (since the Bible would already be included under the fruits of the Church).

 

[MarcoPolo]

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it.” —Martin Luther, Commentary on John, Chap 16.

Dig the new sig, Tef.

 

[Teflon93]

Dig the new sig, Tef.

Thank you, sir. Following the recent exchanges with great interest.

 

[Krocker]

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.

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

 

[Teflon93]

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.

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

I hear you. My own wife bears it out; she was definitely transformed by the pagan-to-Pentecostal transition, and she maintains to this day there was no real chance she’d go pagan-to-Catholic in one leap.

Unfortunately, many of our Catholics who fall away evidence a terribly poor level of catechesis. It’s one thing to know and to reject; I may think you’re wrong but I won’t think you’re misguided. Many go from “Don’t know” to “Reject”; it’s these folks I worry about.

I don’ t think you quite mean the indifference implied in “whatever works for you”; I certainly concede the larger point that better a Christian than a non-Christian be.

CM’s made of stern stuff; if you offend him, he’ll tell you, but he’ll hang in so long as the discussion is productive from what I’ve seen.

Welcome and please do stick around. Things may get argumentative and heated from time to time around here but Catholics and non-Catholics alike here love their faith and love to discuss it. Passion often results in heat as well as light. I’ve found most folks honestly don’t try to offend; if things seem to get too personal someone will typically cry foul and things will cool down.

Plus, the moderators here do a very good job of ensuring that charity is maintained; I think many stick around here because threads very rarely get as heated as other places.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But it should be whatever works best for you. My thoughts.

In our pursuit of the truth, that’s the one thing we know we cannot conclude, no?

When you have 2 matters that contradict, say A and B, you can make the following possible conclusions:

1. A is true. B is false.
2. A is false. B is true.
3. A is false. B is false.

But you can’t say both are true!

No matter how many more variables you add that do not say the same thing, the one conclusion you can always draw is “all of them cannot be right”.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Going back to the OP original question, I noticed a lot of people asking for the specious request of citing Church authority from someone who was not in the Church.

Nevertheless, I thought of an example of the Emperor Pliny in the 2nd century referencing the Christians worshipping on Sunday. This change would likely have had to come from an authority since the OT day of worship was the Sabbath, Saturday.

 

[HailMary]

In our pursuit of the truth, that’s the one thing we know we cannot conclude, no?

When you have 2 matters that contradict, say A and B, you can make the following possible conclusions:

1. A is true. B is false.
2. A is false. B is true.
3. A is false. B is false.

But you can’t say both are true!

No matter how many more variables you add that do not say the same thing, the one conclusion you can always draw is “all of them cannot be right”.

You cannot say:
Confession is a real Sacrament and when Christ said in John 20:22-23When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
He really meant that you must confess your sins to a Priest because how would the priest know what sins to forgive or retain if they were not known to him in the first place.

AND

I can confess my sins to God directly, without the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

both those statements cannot be true at the same time. One of the beautiful things about being Catholic is we get to confess our sins to God whenever we want, and we also partake of this abundance of grace offered in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Catholicism it the most extreme since we are on both ends of the spectrum.

 

[inkaneer]

Krocker writes: "Well I don’t believe it, and that is sufficient for our discussion. I attend a non-denominational church (and a Catholic church), and I can assure you my fellow Protestants non-denominationalists collectively do not agree that the Bible is the ONLY source, it’s just the best source. If tradition contradicts the Bible, it must submit. If it doesn’t, do with it as you wish. It’s not equal authority, as Catholics believe, but more of a 1 and 1A. That, to me, makes perfect sense, but I know it doesn’t to others and that’s fine. "

REPLY: Well then Sola scriptutra says Scripture alone is authoritative. Now unless you want to get into an argument about the meaning of Latin words, specifically the word “Sola”… However, your post is very telling for it in effect states that the basic fundamental doctrine of the entire protestant movement is now in the process of being modified or changed. That is an overt admission that sola scriptura is [was] a false doctrine because doctrine does not change.

Krocker writes: “I always hear about how fractured Protestantism is and how that must be the reason why it’s collectively wrong. Fair enough argument, but in my opinion it lacks weight (unless you fall back to the “I’m first, therefore I’m right,” which I don’t buy). Again, it’s only my opinion and I respect your ability and right to disagree. With that said, I know many Catholics who don’t believe all the teachings of the Catholic church (my wife for one). You can call them non-Catholics if you’d like, but that’s not what they call themselves. There are bound to be fissures in any collective thought of such massive proportions.”

REPLY: Which is all the more reason to set up an authority to determine what is correct doctrine and worthy of belief and what is not. The U.S. Constitution could be interpreted many ways also but there is a Supreme court that says that this is the way it is to be interpreted. And that becomes the law of the land. By the way your wife and those "ther Catholics’ can believe anything she or they want. But the Church is telling her [and everyone else] what is correct and worthy of belief. And remember Paul’s admonition to Timothy about the church being the pillar and foundation of truth. Not the scriptures and not someone’s interpretation of those scriptures. Your wife by rejecting some of the doctrines of the Church has excommunicated herself. That means she is not in communion [not united] with the Church on doctrine.

.

 

[Krocker]

ChurchMilitant,

My apologies. I think some of my earlier posts didn’t come across as I wished they had and probably had some “bashing” in them. I’ve been trying to bash a little on both Protestants and Catholics, but because there are, obviously, more Catholics here, I guess it’s too one-sided. I’ll try a little harder to keep the peace.

Inkaneer,

First: again, I think Protestants are getting a bad rap by having everyone lumped into the sola scriptura group. I tried to explain earlier what I tend to believe (and most other Protestants to my knowledge), and I guess I’ll just have to leave it at that.

Second, I completely agree about the reference to the supreme court’s way of “finally” determining an issue. I can tell you from many personal experiences however (I am an attorney, which maybe is why I get a little too argumentative, sorry again about that), that the supreme court reverses itself. There are embarrasingly wrong decisions by the supremes that have been overturned. I’m just saying, I think the ability to overturn a doctrine should be an option versus claiming that the FIRST opinion is and always has to be right, because it was closer in time to the framers of the constitution (indeed some of them being the framers), which would logically be the “Bible” in your example. Supreme Court justices are brilliant legal scholars, but even they can be and often are wrong.

MarcoPolo,

You wrote: “1) The Church has never had the authority to declare anything as true except for issues of faith and morals…not the physical location of the earth. It never claimed that as unchangeable or infallible.”

Response: That’s a fair enough distinction. I think it does show that the Church can be wrong however. Whether one is willing to take the leap that an institution that can admittedly be wrong is never wrong in a certain area is probably another thread. I have a tough time swallowing that one, but so be it.

You wrote: “2) clarify this claim on the Immaculate Conception for me…I’m unfamiliar with what you speak.”

Response: I was just thinking that females have XX chromosomes, while males have XY chromosomes, with the Y chromosome being inherited by the father. Since Mary was a virgin, there was no source for a Y chromosome. It seems logical then that the miracle of Jesus’ birth was a solely God-created issue without regard to whether Mary had original sin or not (Mary obviously couldn’t have produced Jesus on her own – if God can simply introduce a Y chromosome into Mary, why couldn’t He simply introduce an entirely chromosomally unrelated Jesus into Mary?)

You wrote: “3) The bread and wine retain their physical properties…a DNA test would not reveal the essence of the spiritual reality Jesus spoke of in John 6 and Matthew 26, and Paul in 1 Cor. 11.”

Response: Maybe I misunderstand what transubstantiation means then? Can you explain it further. Does it mean the actual body and blood of Christ? Because, if it does, I would think DNA and blood alcohol tests would be the obvious proof or disproof. If it means something else, than how is it different than the Protestant view of communion?

You wrote: “As to the appeal to early teachings…they would have more value in that the message was less-diluted from generation to generation. Remember…no Bible till the end of the 4th century.”

Response: But the Bible was written well before then, it just wasn’t determined which books were “in” and which were “out.” So traditions after the writings of James and Paul (the earliest to my knowledge) should not contradict those writings. I’m not saying they do, I’m just saying (and asking if you agree) logically this must be the case if the earliest is always the most reliable.

You wrote (earlier): “If a person comes closer to Jesus by following a Protestant doctrine, then it will be because that particular Protestant doctrine reveals something true! No problem there!”

Response: So one could learn the Truth from Protestantism as well? Again, I have tried to make this my basic point from the beginning. There is certainly Truth in Catholic teachings as there is in Protestant teachings. We should spend more time rejoicing in our consistent beliefs, which is the vast majority of the “big” stuff. I think that is how you reach nonbelievers, which should be our collective and singularly most important goal.