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

[rad314]

. . . 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.”.

And if the Bible did say that, would you find it persuasive? Now, that would be a circular argument, wouldn’t it?

 

[Krocker]

Teflon93,

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

I’m not aware of any such link but will let you know if I find something. With that said, I think such a link is unlikely because, as I’ve heard on this thread many, many times, often with a negative conotation, that Protestants are free to interpret the Bible individually and are not bound by “official” teachings. Since there is no need to get together to define “official” Protestant teachings, I doubt there is such a thing. I could very well be wrong in that assumption, but I can only speak for my personal beliefs and my personal experiences in Protestant churches. And, maybe this is just a semantic issue (I hear sola scriptura from Catholics a lot more than I do from Protestants). If sola scriptura means “the Bible is all you need,” than I would say this is uniformly believed by Protestants (and myself). If sola scriptura means “the Bible is all there is” than I would disagree and I think most Protestants would disagree. As I’ve stated above somewhere, the Bible is the starting point, if something outside clarifies and does not contradict the Bible, it could be useful to help you interpret the Bible – but it is not Biblical in and of itself and there would be no requirement that you adhere to it. Does that clarify? – maybe I was using the term differently than you?

rad314

You wrote: " And if the Bible did say that, would you find it persuasive? Now, that would be a circular argument, wouldn’t it?"

And if my aunt was a man, she’d be my uncle. I don’t get your point. The Bible doesn’t say that, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to respond to that argument – we have enough discussion points as it is!! In any event, Catholics believe the Bible is inspired as well, so even if it did say that we’d all be on the same page. There would be no scripture/tradition argument because it would be tough to argue “tradition” has any merit if the inspired Word of God says “tradition is irrelevant, and all you need are the books of the New Testament.”

 

[PC_Master]

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.

And you, good sir, just totally avoided the point he made. Very clever, but not too helpful for those of us trying to figure out how the RCC justifies its beliefs.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

And you, good sir, just totally avoided the point he made. Very clever, but not too helpful for those of us trying to figure out how the RCC justifies its beliefs.

But he’s not dismissing it PC Master. He’s simply asking you by what authority you make the claims you do.

So, for example, why would Luther himself have admitted that if not for the Catholic Church we would not have the Scripture with which we are so vigorously debating?

That’s not a circular argument. This is an acknowledgement from a protestant source which concludes a premise which the Catholic Church likewise believes.

In the end, this has nothing to do with saying my interpretation is right because my interpretation says I cannot be wrong. It has everything to do with a continuum from the earliest days which carried a traditional understanding from the very beginning. And this is not something which sola scriptura can easilly align itself too either.

 

[Church_Militant]

And you, good sir, just totally avoided the point he made. Very clever, but not too helpful for those of us trying to figure out how the RCC justifies its beliefs.

If you say so, but that was not my intent.

My point is that the argument you decried is indeed weak and not a good evidence.

I know that the majority of n-Cs have to have scripture to back up anything but in this case there is not only the (already much repeated) scriptural case that Catholics make, but a (already much repeated) substantial historical case as well. The two complementing and strengthening each other to make the actual evidence that the Catholic Church bases its claim upon.

My second point is that the other argument that you complained about, (the “my interpretation is right and yours is wrong because my church says so”) is actually more the one that I am faced with by the vast majority of n-C apologists.

My response is always the same. Prove to me that your interpretation (of whatever passage we are discussing) is correct. Generally there is no universal n-C authority for them to appeal to and when I point out the literal interpretation does not agree with theirs and that the verifiable writings of the early church also disagree, (while actually saying that they teach the same things that Catholics have taught for as much as 19 centuries), they then simply fall back on “you’re wrong”…which to my mind means that they are asserting themselves (or their modern denomination, pastor, pet modern theologian, or whatever) to be infallibly correct in interpretation.

I don’t think there is any dearth of good apologetic explanations for Catholic belief, I just think that the n-Cs that we encounter are generally not knowledgeable enough (or are just too set in their a-C thinking) to actually comprehend Catholic apologetics. Neither one of those options makes for a very good discussion.

I don’t think there is any circular argument for this topic…I think that a great many n-C apologists wish there was.

No offense intended, but that is the way it seems to me after a great deal of discussions and debates here at CAF and on other forums.

 

[rad314]

You wrote: " And if the Bible did say that, would you find it persuasive? Now, that would be a circular argument, wouldn’t it?"

And if my aunt was a man, she’d be my uncle. I don’t get your point. The Bible doesn’t say that, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to respond to that argument – we have enough discussion points as it is!! In any event, Catholics believe the Bible is inspired as well, so even if it did say that we’d all be on the same page. There would be no scripture/tradition argument because it would be tough to argue “tradition” has any merit if the inspired Word of God says “tradition is irrelevant, and all you need are the books of the New Testament.”

Interesting. If the Bible said “tradition is irrelevant, and all you need are the books of the New Testament” it would be self-discrediting. On the one hand you would have a circular argument (‘the NT is sufficient because the NT says it’s sufficient’) and on the other you would undercut the very basis for accepting its inspiration (Tradition). But as you’ll be quick to point out, it doesn’t say that, so there’s no point responding. Oh, but wait . . . you brought that up.

Anyway, I don’t see why you disregard the fact that the Bible tells us explicitly that Tradition is relevant and that we need more than the NT. But as I’ve suggested, I don’t have a lot of time to go over this material. If you really want to know, I refer you again to the Keating book.

 

[Teflon93]

Even an opinion poll or study to show that a majority of Protestants no longer believe in sola scriptura would be fine, Krocker—if so, this would be a big trend that I certainly missed.

 

[Krocker]

rad314,

The authority of the Bible is circular, no doubt about that – but it’s at least a circularity that both Catholics and Protestants agree upon. So the fact that the Bible says that scripture is inspired is not really an issue (at least between Catholics and Protestants, it might be between Christians and other religions). I also agree with you that the Bible could be interpreted to hold that tradition is important (e.g., Jesus did so much, we can’t fit it all in here – the “other stuff” could be upheld through “tradition”). I don’t have a problem with that interpretation either. The fact is, however, that (at least in my opinion) the Bible does not say that tradition is equivalent to scripture. Even more, at most it refers to a generic notion of tradition. If “tradition” is to be determined 100, 500, or 2000 years after Christ, I have a problem with deeming it equal to scripture without similar authentication.

And your point about the books of the Bible being determined by “tradition” is well taken. But I think the point should also be made that the Catholic church did not create these works – but only selected those reliable books that were already being used by Christians. So while the rubber stamping may have been from the then-unified Catholic Church, the scriptures were scriptures well before the time of Constantine (and agreed to nearly unanimously – even through the East/West divide). Historical writings suggest this to be the case (and put whatever weight you want into those writings because they are not simiarly verifiable as the Bible – e.g., Origen). In fact, when Peter says that Paul’s writings are confusing to some, he refers to Paul’s writings as scripture. So, clearly, scripture was scripture before the Catholic church deemed it so.

 

[rad314]

The authority of the Bible is circular, no doubt about that – but it’s at least a circularity that both Catholics and Protestants agree upon. . . . The fact is, however, that (at least in my opinion) the Bible does not say that tradition is equivalent to scripture.

To be brief . . . no, we don’t agree on that – the Catholic reason for accepting the authority of the Bible is definitely not that the Bible tells us to. And, secondly, Paul explicitly puts Scripture and Tradition on the same footing.

And if you want to understand what I’m talking about, I’ll bet by this point you can guess where you can read the explanations.

 

[Pons]

But I think the point should also be made that the Catholic church did not create these works – but only selected those reliable books that were already being used by Christians. … In fact, when Peter says that Paul’s writings are confusing to some, he refers to Paul’s writings as scripture. So, clearly, scripture was scripture before the Catholic church deemed it so.

But the Catholic church views those Christian churches at the time as part of itself, not forerunners. So Peter and Paul were Catholic, in its view…

 

[Krocker]

rad314,

You wrote: “To be brief . . . no, we don’t agree on that – the Catholic reason for accepting the authority of the Bible is definitely not that the Bible tells us to. And, secondly, Paul explicitly puts Scripture and Tradition on the same footing.”

So Catholics believe that tradition is MORE important than the Bible because the Bible came out of tradition? And if the Bible is circular and the Bible comes from Catholic “tradition,” the logical conclusion is that Catholic tradition is circular. And a round and round we collectively go

Paul says a lot of things, but that’s another argument. What verse are you referring to?

 

[Teflon93]

rad314,

You wrote: “To be brief . . . no, we don’t agree on that – the Catholic reason for accepting the authority of the Bible is definitely not that the Bible tells us to. And, secondly, Paul explicitly puts Scripture and Tradition on the same footing.”

So Catholics believe that tradition is MORE important than the Bible because the Bible came out of tradition? And if the Bible is circular and the Bible comes from Catholic “tradition,” the logical conclusion is that Catholic tradition is circular. And a round and round we collectively go

Paul says a lot of things, but that’s another argument. What verse are you referring to?

The Church has 3 components—Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. One cannot fetishize the one at the expense of the other anymore than one can divide the Holy Trinity to set Father, Son, or Holy Spirit against the other.

 

[HailMary]

My response is always the same. Prove to me that your interpretation (of whatever passage we are discussing) is correct.

Apparently, PC wanted me to prove to him that when Jesus Christ gave authority to his Apostles to forgive sins in His name in John 20:22-23, that this was indeed true.

I asked PC a silly question here, to prove to me that that the Apostles can heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils. He never got back to me, I suppose because he realized that the answer he will give is to quote Matthew 10:8 which is clear that Christ gave that power and authority to the Apostles. And when he realizes how is really just lying to himself to what is REALLY happening in John 20:22-23, he would have no option to but to either: admit that Christ’s forgiveness in indeed through a Priest in the Sacrament, or, hide this whole thing under the rug. I hope its the former!

Generally there is no universal n-C authority for them to appeal to and when I point out the literal interpretation does not agree with theirs and that the verifiable writings of the early church also disagree, (while actually saying that they teach the same things that Catholics have taught for as much as 19 centuries), they then simply fall back on “you’re wrong”…which to my mind means that they are asserting themselves (or their modern denomination, pastor, pet modern theologian, or whatever) to be infallibly correct in interpretation.

You are right because:

**The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.

** Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura

 

[Krocker]

While I meant “a round and a round we go” to mean you can’t say tradition isn’t circular, if your tradition includes the Bible which you claim to be circular, I also think we’re just rehashing the same arguments at this point. I’m going to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I admire and urge you to continue growing in your faith, as will I. Plus, I’m spending too much time on this thread! God bless.

 

[Teflon93]

While I meant “a round and a round we go” to mean you can’t say tradition isn’t circular, if your tradition includes the Bible which you claim to be circular, I also think we’re just rehashing the same arguments at this point. I’m going to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I admire and urge you to continue growing in your faith, as will I. Plus, I’m spending too much time on this thread! God bless.

Tradition is linear by definition. One of the best ways to study the impact of tradition is to study those cultures wherein it is considered important. This puts Americans at an enormous disadvantage as Americans are among the least traditional people to be found.

I suggest studying the Romans in particular, as they married tradition with both government and familial obligations. Otherwise, your view of tradition will remain too stunted and narrow.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

While I meant “a round and a round we go” to mean you can’t say tradition isn’t circular, if your tradition includes the Bible which you claim to be circular, I also think we’re just rehashing the same arguments at this point. I’m going to agree to disagree and leave it at that. I admire and urge you to continue growing in your faith, as will I. Plus, I’m spending too much time on this thread! God bless.

God bless you as well.

Perhaps, before you go, however, you could consider a few things.

Myself, I’ve often noticed that many claim that the sola scriptura argument is a circular argument. While I agree to some extent (because logic demands that for A to equal C, A must be equal to B and B must be equal to C-- it’s kind of circular), I also at least recognize one possibly valid claim regarding the supposed need for sola scriptura.

A true and mature definition of sola scriptura does not simply state that someone believes something in the Scriptures simply because the “Bible tells me so”-- that would be a circular argument. A mature definition of sola scriptura uses some form of logic to point out, rather pain-stakenly, that, throughout history, the Scriptures themselves appears to be the the single source that has not let people down.

More to the point, when things go wrong in the Church, people seem to fall back on the Scriptures as an authoritive record which is believed to be deeply anchored into the apostolic area. It is in this way that, if one can use the analogy of a body, I would liken the Scriptures to being akin the skelleton of the body of Christ-- a framework which essentially holds many things together.

Having said that, a skelleton without anything else, such as a heart, brain, or other vital organs, is thoroughly dead. So I would say that, again using the analogy of a body, all “churches”, at least in part, have some other “vital organs” to keep them going. They could not exist simply as a skelleton alone.

Would you agree with this?

 

[inkaneer]

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.

REPLY: Let’s take purgatory. This is actually found in scripture although the common misconceptions of it are not. So let’s get rid of the misconceptions. First of all, Purgatory is not a place as is heaven or hell. Purgatory is a process of purging ones body of venial sin and the effects of sin. Our finite minds tend to think that a process takes place in space and time. But purgation is not a material or physical process. It is a spiritual one that occurrs after death when space and time are no longer. It is not, as some protestants think, a “second chance” to enter heaven. A soul going to purgatory is already saved and will go to heaven. A soul who has been condemned can only wish for purgatory.

So where is it in the scriptures? The first place to look is in Revelation 21:27 where in it, speaking of heaven, says,

“But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

So nothing unclean shall enter heaven. Now let’s take a look at 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. This passage sums up purgatory quite well.

“11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

Notice the last verse. The man is saved but through fire? I have asked protestant ministers to show me where this concept is found in protestant theology. The short [and long answer] is that it isn’t. But it is in Catholic theology. This is Purgatory in action. Notice the man is saved but his works are tested by fire. The good works, gold, silver and precious stones, are purified while the bad works are burned off. By the way the Orthodox have a similar teaching only they call it Final Theosis.

 

[rad314]

rad314,

You wrote: “To be brief . . . no, we don’t agree on that – the Catholic reason for accepting the authority of the Bible is definitely not that the Bible tells us to. And, secondly, Paul explicitly puts Scripture and Tradition on the same footing.”

So Catholics believe that tradition is MORE important than the Bible because the Bible came out of tradition? And if the Bible is circular and the Bible comes from Catholic “tradition,” the logical conclusion is that Catholic tradition is circular. And a round and round we collectively go

Paul says a lot of things, but that’s another argument. What verse are you referring to?

Here’s a brief statement of the Catholic understanding of biblical inspiration, put much better than I could do: catholic.com/library/proving_inspiration.asp. You can find all kinds of interesting things with catholic.com’s ‘search’ feature. I know that article will raise a lot of questions and, as a great admirer of it, I commend to you (again) Karl Keating’s ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism’.

 

[rad314]

. . .

So Catholics believe that tradition is MORE important than the Bible because the Bible came out of tradition? And if the Bible is circular and the Bible comes from Catholic “tradition,” the logical conclusion is that Catholic tradition is circular. And a round and round we collectively go

. . .

Krocker,

Note that the link in #197 makes it clear that I was wrong in #185 with the remark about the basis for accepting biblical inspiration – and I’m happy to admit it. As I’ve said, others can express things better than I, both more articulately and more accurately.

Obviously, I could be wrong, but I assume you’re an American. An interesting thing about us is that we’re the most individualistic people in the world, with the implication that we often have problems with the concept of authority, confusing it with authoritarianism. I think it was C.S. Lewis or Peter Kreeft who pointed out that authority is the right (obligation, even) to speak on behalf of the Author. Instead of being free rein to exercise power, authority is a gift to be used in the service of others. Indeed, the last and most important in the lengthy list of the pope’s titles is ‘Servant of the Servants of God’.

BTW, #196 was addressed to you, but it looks like something went awry and you probably didn’t get notified.

 

[PC_Master]

But he’s not dismissing it PC Master. He’s simply asking you by what authority you make the claims you do.

Given that the question is how the RCC can justify its own claims about itself, that seems rather deflective.

So, for example, why would Luther himself have admitted that if not for the Catholic Church we would not have the Scripture with which we are so vigorously debating?

To interpret his words as referring to the RCC as opposed to the apostolic church, or perhaps for his original intent to have been that, just makes no sense. Then again, I never held tons of respect for Luther.

In the end, this has nothing to do with saying my interpretation is right because my interpretation says I cannot be wrong. It has everything to do with a continuum from the earliest days which carried a traditional understanding from the very beginning. And this is not something which sola scriptura can easilly align itself too either.

That’s okay, because I don’t hold to SS. Now – how do you know that your view of history is correct? My view is different, and surely you’d say it’s wrong. But how do you know that? What gives you, or the RCC superiority in this aside from its own claims that it actually is the original church?

My second point is that the other argument that you complained about, (the “my interpretation is right and yours is wrong because my church says so”) is actually more the one that I am faced with by the vast majority of n-C apologists.

That’s not the argument I supported. There’s a difference between “My interpretation is right because my interpretation says I can’t be wrong.” and believing that one’s own interpretation is right. Sure, I believe my interpretations are right (or else I wouldn’t believe them), but I also accept the possibility of error. And this is where I trust and pray for God’s guidance.

On the other hand, the RC argument seems to be that there is no possibility of error in these things, and thus when you say that the RCC is the apostolic church, there’s no need for concern or any sort of verification or questioning, because you have faith in the RCC. It’s extremely circular. Without faith in the RCC, you might question RC teachings, and then disagree with them. Because you do have faith in the RCC, you trust its teachings, and assume them to be right, thereby validating the authority of the RCC.

My response is always the same. Prove to me that your interpretation (of whatever passage we are discussing) is correct.

I can’t. I can only combine what evidence is available from history with personal beliefs and with logic and reasoning to establish things the best I can, and I trust God to make up the difference between that and the real truth…eventually (because I know I’m not perfectly willing to hear that all the time).

Generally there is no universal n-C authority for them to appeal to…

This only matters if you can establish that a universal earthly authority is necessary. Since your own universal earthly authority appears to have contradicted itself now and then, this is very hard to establish, and it’s where you need to start.

…and when I point out the literal interpretation does not agree with theirs…

The very fact that it’s an interpretation should say something. Interpretations, even supposedly literal ones, can vary from person to person. Man simply isn’t perfect in translation and interpretation (or anything else, for that matter). That’s why we need to trust God.

…and that the verifiable writings of the early church also disagree, (while actually saying that they teach the same things that Catholics have taught for as much as 19 centuries)…

I would argue that it’s only your interpretation of those writings which is in agreement. My own interpretation of many of those same writings is not.

Continued…