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

[PC_Master]

…they then simply fall back on “you’re wrong”…which to my mind means that they are asserting themselves…to be infallibly correct in interpretation.

No – they’re asserting themselves to be right, because they believe that. They don’t believe themselves to be infallible, however.

On the other hand, talking to many Roman Catholics, it comes down to much the same thing “you’re wrong because the RCC’s interpretation says so”. How do you verify the RCC from an outside source? If one has to trust what the RCC says, and how it interprets things, for those things to point to the RCC, it’s circular logic, period. So, what’s your outside source? I’m pretty sure that outside source is your own faith in the RCC, and while that may be as good a source as any can hope for, it’s also a fallible source, and thus won’t do much good in demonstrating the validity of the RCC to others.

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.

It’s much the same way dealing with Roman Catholics and the idea that all Protestants embrace SS.

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.

Most don’t disregard that point. Most of us simply disagree that Roman Catholic tradition is the tradition scripture speaks of.

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).

The basis for believing in the inspiration of scripture is the issue. Did the Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today (at least at the very core) exist as the apostolic church, or is the RCC a deviation from that? And whether it is or not, how do we know? If you have to rely on statements of the RCC to verify this, then you’re on shaky ground, and it is indeed a case of circular logic.

I’m not saying there’s any external source available except for our faith in X, but at least people should be willing to admit that. I believe as I do because I have faith that God won’t let me fall into grave error if I’m earnestly seeking the truth. Likewise, you have faith that the RCC won’t fall into error, and therefore you trust its teachings.

The question is – how do you know you’re having the right faith? Are you not capable of believing error? What we’re really dealing with isn’t a case of “objective truth versus individual truth”, it’s a case of every person having faith in what they believe.

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…

And in the Eastern Orthodox view, those churches (congregations) and persons were Orthodox, I’m sure. Each group obviously interprets the past in light of what it believes is true. The question is how we can know which interpretation is right.

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.

Actually, I’m more interested in seeing you prove that anyone aside from God alone can actually forgive sin. I’m also interested in seeing you disprove the concept that if we (or the apostles, as humans) forgive the sins of another, we’re only doing so saying “we believe God forgives you”.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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.

Interpretations are many. Truth is sometimes hard to find. Regardless, we know that the apostles did do at least some of these things if we believe scripture. However, show me where it ever says that the priest/bishop/pastor/whoever actually forgave the sins of another. In fact, it was only Jesus who did so (and rightly so, for only he had the heavenly authority).

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.

I agree, but there’s also one other source which hasn’t let anyone down – God himself. The problem is, we sometimes don’t listen to what he’s trying to tell us.

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?

I would, generally speaking. There must be commonalities in interpretation of scripture, etc for any group to come together. Thus, yes, the church (that is, the true congregation of God, at least if it were in perfection, with all being completely in God’s will) would necessarily share beliefs found not in scripture alone, for scripture isn’t fully exhaustive.

But how do you prove that the Roman Catholic position is the right completion of this body?

So where is [purgatory] 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.”

This is, from what I understand, a very common literary device found throughout scripture and other literature. What this is not doing is being conclusive. The clauses are not taken individually, but rather as an either/or comparison.

In this case, we have three groupings:

• The unclean
• Any one who practices abomination or falsehood
• Those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life

The appropriate way, to my knowledge, to understand this is that each person would fall in (only) one of these groups. If you’re written in the Lamb’s book of life, you’re going in to heaven. If you’re not, then you’re not. Scripture also tells us that when we accept the salvatory work of Christ, his blood covers over our transgressions, wiping us clean of them. Thus, we are worthy to be written in the book. By the Roman Catholic view, you could only be written in the book after going through purgatory, meaning that no one is in the book before they die. This simply contradicts scripture.

As for your other quote, please go read your scriptures a little more carefully (and compare other translations and do the best you can with the Greek).

 

[Teflon93]

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.

You are flat wrong—Luther was speaking about the Catholic Church; that’s the context of the quote in my signature. It is this kind of casual, anachronistic rewriting of history to suit anti-Catholic biases which destroys your credibility.

It is the need to selectively view history so as to support an anti-Catholic narrative which blinds you. It is remarkable that Martin Luther of all people was more open to the Catholic treasures Protestants inherited than you are.

 

[Valke2]

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.

Heaven and Hell are actual places. They exist in a specific place/time?

 

[kkabby]

We make a serious mistake when we argue that “older is better”… that the oldest belief, the longest held belief, is the correct belief. If we hold that the faith system that is closest to the apostolic system is the most correct, we forget that the apostles, themselves, were anywhere from confused to clueless about the teachings of Jesus. They, like all of us, were trying to understand, which means that they did not necessarily understand.

Though the powers of darkness may not ultimately conquer the Church, it doesn’t mean that we are without error and misunderstanding.

St. Francis de Sales was once quoted as saying (and I paraphrase), ‘woe to the man who criticizes another man’s religion, for he knows not the freedom he preaches.’

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

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

No, actually, it’s not a deflective question. It’s an extremely valid question that needs to be asked when comparing the “authority” by which someone claims their “authority”.

Do you see how the two are linked together?

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.

No, that’s simply not true.

He’s talking about the Catholic Church. He almost quoted Augustine’s original words concering the Catholic Church and the Gospel by the way.
St. Augustine:

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Btw - I haven’t gone anywhere. Just been “listening” here for a while.

I do believe there is ample support from post-apostolic writings and history to show that the post-apostolic church (the one, in fact, that compiled the Bible) held very RC beliefs. I think that most n-Cs are NOT willing to accept that b/c many of those beliefs seem to BLATANTLY contradict the Bible.

The problem is that when you look at Christ’s warnings about deception and Satan’s hand in the false yet seemingly enlightening doctrines, signs, wonders, etc. that would arise from within the church it is pretty easy to just sweep all of the RC evidence under the carpet and say - I’ll stay on the safe side and keep with the Scriptures and the t/Traditions within it which I KNOW are apostolic in origin.

I would have said, whether or not the church that showed evidence of being Catholic compiled the Bible, we know that God would preserve His church and teachings - perhaps through the Bible? Perhaps it was via the Bible (the record of the earliest, inerrant, apostolic, church teachings) that He would preserve His church.

But, how can we know this? How do we know Christ didn’t preserve His church via a Magisterium? One has to assume that it was via the apostles and that it all ended with them (and their writings/the Bible). This has to be the assumption if one holds to the Bible as the most authoritative rule of measure. However…

On the other hand, what evidence do we have that authority continued beyond the apostles (without error) to show that the ongoing, post-apostolic church was going to remain faithful?

I see biblical evidence for both possibilities, but far, far more for the latter:

On one hand the apostles were very clear in saying that we need to be faithful to the teachings that have been handed down thus far. And we know that the H.S. led them into all truth.

**On the other hand, we have, within those very writings, the confession that what is written is not everything, AND, the apostles never actually say that what THEY have written is sufficient (this is an assumtion based on: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which was, at that time, referring to the OT and also does not imply that any interpretation of scripture will result in said perfection or good works.) Indeed some terrible mis-interpretations have resulted in atrocities!

**Additionally we have Scripture attesting to the fact that the unlearned and unstable will twist the Scriptures to their own destruction (mostly likely unknowingly and with good intentions).

**As well Scripture testifies to the fact that the faith is being handed down (not set in writing once for all),

**That the church is the pillar of truth (a non-C p.o.v. has to assume that the truth the church is upholding is solely the Bible and t/T-raditions w/in it),

**That “He who hears you hears Me” (a non-C p.o.v. has to assume that Christ never intended for this to extend past the Apostles - even though Christ Himself said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church. Additionally, the non-C p.o.v. also has to assume that said church is the church as we individually envision the Bible to portray).

And finally, probably the most convincing, biblical evidence I see:

*****Is the fact that the Apostles appointed successors. Truly - what was the point? Were they merely hopeful that those who came after them would remain faithful, knowing Christ’s warning about false teachers and Satan’s attempts to trick the elect? One would think they would have put more emphasis on writing and admonishing everyone to be as faithful to those writings as possible. But no - the emphasis seems to have been placed on oral transmission and appointing successors and admonishing them to be true to the faith. Aside from the Gospels, much of the NT is simply letters to the churches and its leaders. Had the Apostles’ intent been to preserve Christ’s teachings through them in written form, I believe they would have written far more and in a far different manner; being more instructive and exhaustive - yet we have the opposite - the admission that their writings (even the Gospels) are NOT exhaustive.

cont…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

It seems clear that their intent was never to preserve Christ’s teachings via their writings. If it were so, I believe there would be more writings – certainly from all the Apostles (since they were ALL given Christ’s authority) – and most likely there would have been a collaboration of their efforts; working together to write an exhaustive source that would remain their successor and the church’s final authority after their time.

Yet again, we do not see this. It simply isn’t portrayed this way in the Scriptures themselves.

So, how biblical is it to believe that the church Christ established fell off the rails and the only hope for its revival would be strict adherence to the 1500+ year-old Scriptures? Sweep history, post-apostolic writings, miracles and all other things Catholic under the carpet b/c some Scriptures seem to contradict? Was that the Apostles’ intent??? Are their writings really saying “you can’t trust anything that came after us unless it looks like what little we have written (of which everyone will have a different opinion)”?

There is just far too much pre-canon, historical evidence that points to the church’s Catholicity for me to stubbornly maintain that the church had to have IMMEDIATELY fallen into MASSIVE error, and the only hope for the revival of the truth would be a very uncertain individual interpretation of the 1500+ year-old writings of the Apostles (now 2000+ years old). How far removed I am from their original intention and original, intended meaning. I have to assume too much to have faith in that.

Btw – I went to confession last Wednesday. I later found out that a close friend of mine (a very devout, saintly Catholic woman I met at Mass many years ago) died the day of my return to the church. Coincidence? Perhaps. But I know this woman spent much of her frail and sickly days on earth these past several years, praying for me and my family (among others).

I simply can’t remain stubborn about the supposed Bible contradictions I see. There is too much other evidence that suggests my interpretation is too simple (not taking history, culture etc. into account) and certainly flawed. Even the Bible seems to contradict my desire to use the Bible as my rule of measure. And in the end, all I can tell you is that I want to believe my interpretation b/c it seems right to me – but I did not write it and it wasn’t written to me exclusively, and I have no assurance that what I believe it to mean is correct. There has to be assurance of its meaning - or it is meaning-less (as a rule of measure). It certainly takes more faith to believe one’s own interpretation over that of the 2000+ year-old RCC.

I used to think that with the proper disposition the truth contained w/in Scripture would be apparent. I thought perhaps pride is actually one of the reasons why people disagree over its meaning, and pride especially being the case for the claims of the RCC. That the RCCs claims point to the need for worldly wisdom and power to understand the Bible, and Jesus came for the simple, infirmed and often very unlearned. I do still believe that if we are simple and humble the truths contained in Scripture will be apparent (the “essentials”), but it is precisely b/c we are simple and infirmed etc that we need a doctor, and the remedy is not to make our own medicine (the hope that what we’ve made Scripture to mean will save us) but rather to turn to the institution he gave us that supplies the certain remedy for our ills that will lead to our salvation. An institution not based on worldly wisdom and pride, but on the Spirit of God lovingly providing us with the medicine we need. If Jesus truly came for the sick and lowly, He had to have provided a certain way; an infallible one. He did not leave us orphans.

I concede.

Thank God I don’t have to know it all on my own!

Peace

 

[FCEGM]

. . .Btw – I went to confession last Wednesday. I later found out that a close friend of mine (a very devout, saintly Catholic woman I met at Mass many years ago) died the day of my return to the church. Coincidence? Perhaps. But I know this woman spent much of her frail and sickly days on earth these past several years, praying for me and my family (among others). . . .

I think when we get to Heaven, we will be gratefully surprised at all who were mindful of us in our struggles to be faithful to Christ. Thanks be to God, Joy!

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I think when we get to Heaven, we will be gratefully surprised at all who were mindful of us in our struggles to be faithful to Christ. Thanks be to God, Joy!

Certainly!

I’m not overly-confident about my return though, as if to say I have “arrived” so to speak. I’ve gone through this roller-coaster faith thing for a few years; seeing some light and having enough faith to come back, but then falling away again very shortly. I need prayers for perseverance and I definately need to study more about what is wrong with the logic I’d been using. I am awaiting a copy of “Fundamentalism and Catholicism” and one of “Evangelical Is Not Enough”. I’m hopeful that those will shed some light and stregthen my conviction.

 

[davidv]

Certainly!

I’m not overly-confident about my return though, as if to say I have “arrived” so to speak. I’ve gone through this roller-coaster faith thing for a few years; seeing some light and having enough faith to come back, but then falling away again very shortly. I need prayers for perseverance and I definately need to study more about what is wrong with the logic I’d been using. I am awaiting a copy of “Fundamentalism and Catholicism” and one of “Evangelical Is Not Enough”. I’m hopeful that those will shed some light and stregthen my conviction.

I am currently in an Exodus bible study being led by Jeff Cavins. He has purposely geared the study to the “how does it apply to me” flavor. In this context, we have been challenged to identify how we are personnally in bondage. We can them apply the lessons delivered to Pharoah and the Israelites to our own circumstances. This week, the Israelites response to Moses’ reading of the law and Jeff’s explanation really struck me. I believe it is chapter 24, the Israelites reply “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.”. The nuance was that to obey comes from a word that means hearing and understanding. The message in this for me was that we first must do what we are commanded even if we don’t understand. Then in the doing and subsequent “hearing” we will begin to understand.

 

[PC_Master]

You are flat wrong…It is this kind of casual, anachronistic rewriting of history to suit anti-Catholic biases which destroys your credibility.

…because you say so? What’s your reasoning for knowing that I’m wrong?

Luther was speaking about the Catholic Church; that’s the context of the quote in my signature.

Then perhaps Luther was in error as well. That’s a reasonable possibility to my mind, given how many other things he was in error about.

It is the need to selectively view history so as to support an anti-Catholic narrative which blinds you.

Claims like this help nothing. I say you’re being selective. You say I’m being selective. Where does that get us?

Heaven and Hell are actual places. They exist in a specific place/time?

Are they really “places” (physical locations)? I guess that’s best left for another thread though.

We make a serious mistake when we argue that “older is better”… that the oldest belief, the longest held belief, is the correct belief. If we hold that the faith system that is closest to the apostolic system is the most correct, we forget that the apostles, themselves, were anywhere from confused to clueless about the teachings of Jesus. They, like all of us, were trying to understand, which means that they did not necessarily understand.

So, in that case, how can we trust the scriptures at all, or the writings of the early fathers? For all we know, they’re just the words of confused men misunderstanding Jesus completely.

It sounds like a great argument against protestantism, but it really fails to measure up to the task if you consider the real implications it leaves.

Oh, and by what basis do you discredit scripture?

Though the powers of darkness may not ultimately conquer the Church, it doesn’t mean that we are without error and misunderstanding.

Correct. Except that when you say “Church”, you mean Roman Catholic Church, and when I say church, I refer to all believers in Christ as their savior, regardless of earthly organizations.

No, actually, it’s not a deflective question. It’s an extremely valid question that needs to be asked when comparing the “authority” by which someone claims their “authority”.

Do you see how the two are linked together?

Sure I do, but you’re missing something. This is the typical debating tactic of the one who can’t answer the question. The question asked was whether the RCC as an authority is a circular argument. In essence it’s a test of the validity of the RCC as an authority. It is not, and was not, a question of which authority is better. The question is simply if the RCC is right.

You look at it in a narrow-minded sense:

A) If Protestantism is wrong, or less good, then the RCC is right.
B) If the RCC is wrong, or less good, then Protestantism is right.

There is another possibility…

C) The RCC is wrong, and Protestantism is wrong.

Each can be wrong in minor details without hindering the overall church of Christ. Christ never said that his church (his congregation of true believers) would possess all truth, but rather that it would be led into it. This means that error is not only tolerable, but to be expected.

No, that’s simply not true…He’s talking about the Catholic Church. He almost quoted Augustine’s original words concering the Catholic Church and the Gospel by the way.

As you might have noticed if you read my original words, you’d see that I said that either (1) the interpretation which finds Luther speaking about the RCC is wrong or (2) Luther himself was wrong if the RCC was what he was truly speaking of originally. You’ve focused on countering the former by showing that it was Luther’s intent to speak of the RCC, but you neglect the latter.

No one has answered the key point, however – what is the source by which you validate the RCC? Can anyone say it doesn’t ultimately come down to their personal belief that the RCC is right about its interpretation of history, etc? And if you can’t suggest another ultimate source, are you also willing to admit that you are a fallible creature, capable of misjudging things?

 

[inkaneer]

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.

Valke writes: "Heaven and Hell are actual places. They exist in a specific place/time?

Yes, Heaven and hell are actual places in the spirit realm. That means they are not subject to time and space as a physical place maybe. Purgatory is not a spiritual place nor is it amaterial place either although our finite minds tend to equate a process with a time and /or place. hus the misconception of purgatory being a “place.”

 

[Odell]

…

Each can be wrong in minor details without hindering the overall church of Christ. Christ never said that his church (his congregation of true believers) would possess all truth, but rather that it would be led into it. This means that error is not only tolerable, but to be expected.

“Tell it to the Church” (Matt 18:15-17). We have a church that is an authoritative church. Hence verse 17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church.” The Church is the final authority in regards to faith and morals. What Church do I go to if an issue arises? What church can fulfill this passage? Especially when your church has no authority in what you should or should not believe. It could be any moral issue and religion should play a big role in our moral choices. But there is so much to choose from because we are not unified. Many people don’t bring these issues to the church, they find the church that is already conformed to there morals or form a new denomination. But that is not how it was in the beginning. We did not have other Churches to choose from we had an authoritative Church founded on the apostles. And if I did not believe the Church Jesus founded was an authoritative church there would be no reason to trust them with any issues that may arise because I could simply choose another church. Ultimately my Christian faith is whatever I want it to be. And not how Christ intended it to be.

Think about it does it make sense that the apostles would let someone in the Church if the only thing they had in coming is that they believe Jesus is God. Jesus taught a lot and he told the apostles to pass it on. If you did not except there teachings you were not part of this church.

Jesus left us with a church of truth and unity. This is the church that fulfills this passage. And only the church with this truth and unity can speak authoritative. If this church is divided, it cannot speak authoritatively. He left us with an authoritative, undivided church.

Luke 10:16 says “whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me.” Sounds to me Jesus left us with someone we can go to as a Christian to understand what Jesus would do. But also speak authoritative as well.

In 1 Cor. 2:13 Paul talks about ministers teaching with the wisdom of God. Should we not listen to this wisdom? And can us all divided have the same wisdom of God. Just another example of the authority the Church preaches with.

Acts 15:24-28 says “Since we have heard that some of our number without any mandate from us upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul.”

Someone here had authority and someone did not. Obviously truth matters and who has the authority to teach it does too.

This church is the fullness of all that Christ taught here on earth. The church is the FULLNESS of the truth. How does the fullness of the truth divide amongst 30,000 denominations?

“And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the Church which is his body, the FULLNESS of the one who fills all things in every way” (Eph 1:22-23).

 

[Church_Militant]

Each can be wrong in minor details without hindering the overall church of Christ. Christ never said that his church (his congregation of true believers) would possess all truth, but rather that it would be led into it. This means that error is not only tolerable, but to be expected.

This is as good a reason as I’ve ever seen to walk out of whatever n-C church a person is in and never look back.

Tolerable? I think the New Testament grossly disagrees with you PCM, as do the writings of the early church.

Galatians 1:7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Expected? Only insofar as human nature is involved, but nowhere does the Word of God ever say that errors in teaching are tolerable.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Sure I do, but you’re missing something. This is the typical debating tactic of the one who can’t answer the question. The question asked was whether the RCC as an authority is a circular argument. In essence it’s a test of the validity of the RCC as an authority. It is not, and was not, a question of which authority is better. The question is simply if the RCC is right.

I believe the Catholic Church is right. I also acknowledge many truths found in the Orthodox Church too. But as time goes by, more and more things seem to be rejected in favor of some new kind of movement, mostly nationalistic in nature rather than Scriptural.

You look at it in a narrow-minded sense:

A) If Protestantism is wrong, or less good, then the RCC is right.
B) If the RCC is wrong, or less good, then Protestantism is right.

There is another possibility…

C) The RCC is wrong, and Protestantism is wrong.

I suppose, for hypothetical purposes, the Orthodox Church could be the correct one. I don’t believe this though. Consequently, I definitely don’t believe that many “modern day” denominations are correct either.

Each can be wrong in minor details without hindering the overall church of Christ. Christ never said that his church (his congregation of true believers) would possess all truth, but rather that it would be led into it. This means that error is not only tolerable, but to be expected.

No. That’s not true. First of all, these are not minor differences. They are major differences.

Paul actually addresses this and quite plainly states that the only reason why the Lord would permit these differences is so that people can know who ther true Church is…
1 Corinthians 11:18-19:

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

Furthermore, he also address the problem of the Church splintering further and further until there is some sense of chaos at the end of days…
2 Timothy 4:3:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

This passage doesn’t lend itself easilly to the Catholic Church which has supposedly been teaching heresies according to some protestant views from the beginning, around the 2nd Century. This is because 2 Timothy 4:3 is talking about the Church’s end, and not her beginnings. In other words, protestantism fits into this passage much more easilly than the older Catholic teachings do.

 

[tdgesq]

No one has answered the key point, however – what is the source by which you validate the RCC?

Logic and the empirical. That’s how we know all things. I gave you the answer here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2978452&postcount=45

Can anyone say it doesn’t ultimately come down to their personal belief that the RCC is right about its interpretation of history, etc?

I can. It doesn’t just come down to our own personal beliefs. Oh no doubt, knowledge first requires belief. But you fight against what we know from history. See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2978682&postcount=49

And if you can’t suggest another ultimate source, are you also willing to admit that you are a fallible creature, capable of misjudging things?

LOL!!! Doesn’t this also apply to you? Or perhaps you have a special gnostic connection to God that the rest of us don’t. Do you admit that you could be wrong? What a worthless question you ask. How about this instead, demonstrate to us through logic and the empirical that the Catholic Church as it exists today isn’t the Church of Jesus Christ. Catholics argue that the RCC is an authority through logic and the empirical, which necessarily includes history.

Look. All Catholics have to demonstrate from history is that their Church has been given infallible teaching authority. That’s it. And there is abundant evidence this is the case. You, on the other hand, have to prove that every single Christian truth to which you hold can be independently verified. You are your own authority for every Christian truth - not just one like Catholics. Is there something you don’t understand about that?

 

[pneuma07]

truth

the church is upholding is solely the Bible and t/T-raditions w/in it

“He who hears you hears Me”

One would think they would have put more emphasis on writing and admonishing everyone to be as faithful to those writings as possible. But no - the emphasis seems to have been placed on oral transmission and appointing successors and admonishing them to be true to the faith. Aside from the Gospels, much of the NT is simply letters to the churches and its leaders. Had the Apostles’ intent been to preserve Christ’s teachings through them in written form, I believe they would have written far more and in a far different manner; being more instructive and exhaustive - yet we have the opposite

And then Joy goes on:
"Are their writings really saying “you can’t trust anything that came after us unless it looks like what little we have written (of which everyone will have a different opinion)”? …

and the only hope for the revival of the truth would be a very uncertain individual interpretation of the 1500+ year-old writings of the Apostles (now 2000+ years old). How far removed I am from their original intention and original, intended meaning. "

**I have to assume too much to have faith in that. ** "

Thanks again Joy for this thread, which contains so many insightful contributions, by several posters. And thanks for posts 206 and 207 ! That is much more than what I was asking you about in post 118. I consider these two posts a great defense of the Church.

That is IMHO a fruitful way tp tackle our issue. " What have I to assume, to believe, in order to reject the concept of Magisterium, of Church indefectibility, of a permanent informant on Divine Revelation within the Divine design for us ?"

Now, your conclusion that I have to assume too much is particularly meaningful, IMHO, when considered together with some thoughts by John Henry Newman on “Faith and Private Judgement” ( www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/JUDGMENT.TXT).
I hope everyone here can find an hour to read through this text, of which I’d like to offer short excerpts:

" Men do not become catholics, because they have not faith. …since they have not this faculty of religious belief,
no wonder they do not embrace that, which cannot really be embraced without it. They do not believe any teaching at all in any true sense; and therefore they do not believe the Church in particular. … Now, my dear brethren, consider, are not these two states or acts of mind quite distinct from each other;–to believe simply what a living authority tells you, and to take a book such as Scripture, and to use it as you please, to master it, that is, to make yourself the master of it, to interpret it for yourself, and to admit just what you choose to see in it, and nothing more? Are not these two procedures distinct in this, that in the former you submit, in the latter you judge? …
There is, I repeat, an essential difference between the act of submitting to a living oracle, and to his written words; in the former case there is no appeal from the speaker, in the latter the final decision remains with the reader…
Such is the only rational, consistent account of faith; but so
far are Protestants from professing it, that they laugh at the very
notion of it. They laugh at the very notion itself of men pinning
their faith (as they express themselves) upon Pope or Council; they think it simply superstitious and narrow-minded, to profess to believe just what the Church believes, and to assent to whatever she will say in time to come on matters of doctrine. That is, they laugh at the bare notion of doing what Christians undeniably did in the time of the Apostles. …they think that the very state of mind which such a claim involves in those who admit it, namely, the disposition to accept without reserve or question, that THIS is slavish. "

continued

 

[pneuma07]

So we have the modern mindset, rejecting submission to any
living authority and accepting only a written text, of which everyone of us remains the real master by her/his private judgement. My real rule is then my personal opinion ( maybe claiming direct divine communications supporting it ) on a text I somehow accept as Divine Revelation.
Why ? precisely because this is the modern mindset, and within it believing the very existence of a permanent living informant within the divine design amounts to accepting a laughable form of submission.

Yet, we can see :
1) With Newman, that that is the kind of faith present within the early Church, and that putting myself as the real master of Revelation is a modern novelty.
2) With Joy, that paradoxically it is just rejecting the form of the faith of historical Christianity that leads us to assume too much.

Then, IMHO:
The real alternative to the authority of the Catholic Church in getting Divine Revelation is my own authority, the authority of my own reason. But believing my reason the real authority in matters of faith …is against my reason.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

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

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

This is circular reasoning. If there needs to be an extra-biblical, eartly authority, we still need to determine where that authority is, and the bible is the only infallible source to turn to. The rest is heresay and more self-interpretation.

If we can’t infallibly interpret scripture, then we can’t infallibly interpret the earthly authority either.

Hi

I tend to agree with you.

Now, how to break this circular phenomenon?

GodAllahYHWH sends a Divine-Guide, the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 to resolve such circles, in my opinion. Now it is upto us if we accept him or we don’t accept him. This is upto us but then we cannot blame God.

No compulsion however.

Thanks