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

[Teflon93]

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

Umm, because the quote, which is my sig, is using Catholic in the Catholic Church sense. Do you really believe Luther spent all that ink mocking the “apostolic church”, an anachronism you’ve read backward to the dawn of the Reformation?

There was only ONE Church in Western Europe in Luther’s day.

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.

Sounds like a problem for those relying on Luther for “sola fide” and “sola scriptura” to me.

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

Ask the lurkers.

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.

Congratulations! You’re now qualified to join The Jesus Seminar.

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.

Spoken like an English major. Luther was speaking of the Catholic Church. That’s the only context available to him. Comments like this just display a really appalling ignorance of history and a willingness to read backward into it whatever you believe; it is not the mark of a serious nor an honest inquirer.

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?

The Catholic Church makes claims which can be tested.

Had Catholic Europe been conquered by the Muslims in the 15th century, as may well have happened, her claim to be the Church of Christ would have been utterly rejected. Why? Because Christ assured us the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church.

The fact that the Catholic Church, and she alone, has existed from Pentecost to today is a rather compelling indication that her claims are true.

Protestantism is quite simply 1,500 years too late to claim anything of the sort; thus the need to distort and to read backward into history ridiculous claims.

Meanwhile, constant schism and novel heresies refute Protestant claims daily. We can’t even speak without blushing of Protestantism in any real sense anymore, because five centuries of schism and heresy have destroyed any minimal unity which Protestants had in the 16th century.

It is certainly understandable why you would be a relativist—after all, how could you be anything else given the anarchy of Protestantism today? To insist upon absolute truths is to invite still more fracturing and schism within your own community, as those who disagree invariably split off to form their own version with their own absolutes. Such is the price of the Reformers.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Umm, because the quote, which is my sig, is using Catholic in the Catholic Church sense. Do you really believe Luther spent all that ink mocking the “apostolic church”, an anachronism you’ve read backward to the dawn of the Reformation?

There was only ONE Church in Western Europe in Luther’s day.

Sounds like a problem for those relying on Luther for “sola fide” and “sola scriptura” to me.

Ask the lurkers.

Congratulations! You’re now qualified to join The Jesus Seminar.

Spoken like an English major. Luther was speaking of the Catholic Church. That’s the only context available to him. Comments like this just display a really appalling ignorance of history and a willingness to read backward into it whatever you believe; it is not the mark of a serious nor an honest inquirer.

The Catholic Church makes claims which can be tested.

Had Catholic Europe been conquered by the Muslims in the 15th century, as may well have happened, her claim to be the Church of Christ would have been utterly rejected. Why? Because Christ assured us the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church.

The fact that the Catholic Church, and she alone, has existed from Pentecost to today is a rather compelling indication that her claims are true.

Protestantism is quite simply 1,500 years too late to claim anything of the sort; thus the need to distort and to read backward into history ridiculous claims.

Meanwhile, constant schism and novel heresies refute Protestant claims daily. We can’t even speak without blushing of Protestantism in any real sense anymore, because five centuries of schism and heresy have destroyed any minimal unity which Protestants had in the 16th century.

It is certainly understandable why you would be a relativist—after all, how could you be anything else given the anarchy of Protestantism today? To insist upon absolute truths is to invite still more fracturing and schism within your own community, as those who disagree invariably split off to form their own version with their own absolutes. Such is the price of the Reformers.

And the lurkers thusly rejoiced invariably…

:clapping: :dancing: :yup: :dancing: :clapping:

 

[Teflon93]

And the lurkers thusly rejoiced invariably…

:clapping: :dancing: :yup: :dancing: :clapping:

lol—wasn’t “Ask the Lurkers” a Roy Orbison hit?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

lol—wasn’t “Ask the Lurkers” a Roy Orbison hit?

I honeslty don’t know. I did a search and couldn’t find anything off hand.

Your post, however, was excellent and cut right through all the counter-points presented so far.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Umm, because the quote, which is my sig, is using Catholic in the Catholic Church sense. Do you really believe Luther spent all that ink mocking the “apostolic church”, an anachronism you’ve read backward to the dawn of the Reformation?

There was only ONE Church in Western Europe in Luther’s day.

Sounds like a problem for those relying on Luther for “sola fide” and “sola scriptura” to me.

Spoken like an English major. Luther was speaking of the Catholic Church. That’s the only context available to him. Comments like this just display a really appalling ignorance of history and a willingness to read backward into it whatever you believe; it is not the mark of a serious nor an honest inquirer.

The Catholic Church makes claims which can be tested.

Had Catholic Europe been conquered by the Muslims in the 15th century, as may well have happened, her claim to be the Church of Christ would have been utterly rejected. Why? Because Christ assured us the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church.

The fact that the Catholic Church, and she alone, has existed from Pentecost to today is a rather compelling indication that her claims are true.

Protestantism is quite simply 1,500 years too late to claim anything of the sort; thus the need to distort and to read backward into history ridiculous claims.

Meanwhile, constant schism and novel heresies refute Protestant claims daily. We can’t even speak without blushing of Protestantism in any real sense anymore, because five centuries of schism and heresy have destroyed any minimal unity which Protestants had in the 16th century.

It is certainly understandable why you would be a relativist—after all, how could you be anything else given the anarchy of Protestantism today? To insist upon absolute truths is to invite still more fracturing and schism within your own community, as those who disagree invariably split off to form their own version with their own absolutes. Such is the price of the Reformers.

Well said indeed.

 

[Church_Militant]

Your post, however, was excellent and cut right through all the counter-points presented so far.

I concur!

 

[PC_Master]

Logic and the empirical. That’s how we know all things.

But my knowledge and empiricism doesn’t agree with yours. What does that say – that one of us is wrong (at least) on each issue we have disagreement about.

Oh no doubt, knowledge first requires belief. But you fight against what we know from history.

But your whole string of reasoning relies on a particular interpretation of scripture and the ECFs.

LOL!!! Doesn’t this also apply to you?..Do you admit that you could be wrong?

Absolutely! If you go read my posts, I’m pretty sure you’ll see many instances of me saying I could be wrong. I’m certainly in no state of delusion regarding my own status as a fallible human being which sometimes falls short of God’s desires for me.

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.

I’ve done this, and the evidence has been ignored repeatedly, on the grounds that it doesn’t mesh with the interpretations of the RCC. That, of course, ultimately leads to this very issue.

Catholics argue that the RCC is an authority through logic and the empirical, which necessarily includes history.

I’ve demonstrated several logical paths through which things, like the papacy, could have evolved though not originally present in the church, but with future generations seeing the evidence that exists. The problem is, again, it doesn’t mesh with Roman Catholic interpretation of those sources, and so most of you won’t really take the time to consider it.

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.

Only if you start with having faith that the RCC actually possesses that infallible teaching authority. Otherwise, how are you to know their interpretations of scripture, etc are right? You believe as you do because you believe those interpretations (possibly from being indoctrinated as a child, as many are, into a particular way of thinking). But why do you believe the interpretations? Can you rationally and logically exclude the other possibilities? Have you actually taken the time to try to do that, or are your words just that…words? I strongly suspect the latter.

That said, if you really can empirically and logically prove that the RCC is infallible in teaching, I’d be more than willing to read and consider it (in another thread). It’d have to be a pretty strong case to convince anyone, however, and would certainly require that you logically and rationally exclude other possible arguments and interpretations of your sources. It’s a big task, but if done correctly, it may well even convince some such as myself.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

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?

But if I’m wrong about one thing, I can be corrected of this and change my belief (as I have done many times in the past). If you are wrong about one thing, your whole belief system is in shambles, because you have no real reason for believing any of it except that the RCC said to.

But that really is getting back into that “my belief system is better than yours because I prefer that it works this way” and away from determining how God actually did it. As we all know, sometimes God’s methods are not within our understanding, so perhaps he did it “your way”, though it makes no sense to me. On the other hand, perhaps he did it “my way”, though it makes no sense to you. Aside from your faith that the RCC is right, what do you have to prove either side?

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.

An interesting premise (I actually do know many Protestants who behave like this). There’s a couple of things, however…

First, my God is alive. He is my authority. He guides me and instructs me, as I listen to him. Of course, since I’m fallible, and don’t always listen, it seems to me that I’m not always going to follow him and be in perfect obedience, but he chose to allow me that, and promised he’d lead us into all truth, so I don’t worry about it too much.

Second, I could make the argument that Roman Catholicism falls into a certain mindset. The idea of a single, authoritative head is very comforting. You can clearly know if you’re following God’s will or not, and thus it takes the uncertainty and spiritual maturity that is required of us out of the equation. It leaves mindless automatons whose faith in the RCC is absolute, regardless of whether they agree with all its teachings or not, and thus, produces “Christians” who do not rightly divide the word of truth.

Finally, you still seem to have the impression that Protestants believe in some kind of relative truth. All Protestants will tell you that the truth is absolute. They’ll also tell you they’re probably wrong about something, somewhere. Roman Catholics have been wrong (contradictory statements – at least one must be wrong), yet cover it up and explain it away, all because of the belief that the RCC cannot err. But how do you know that?

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.

But it’s your own reason which is the authority that causes you to have faith in the RCC in the first place.

And round and round we (or rather, you) go!

 

[Teflon93]

It’s not round and round at all.

If it were, there wouldn’t be any Catholic converts from Protestant or Orthodox, would there?

What reason would anyone have for converting to Catholicism if the claims the Catholic Church makes regarding her authority were circular?

I grew up Episcopalian and have spent years in Methodist, Pentecostal, nondenominational, and Presbyterian communities. So why am I a Catholic, having had no equivalent exposure to Catholicism much prior to my decision to convert?

Because I evaluated the Catholic claims and discovered them to be true.

That’s the entrance exam most of us Tiber Swim Team members took.

It’s a very inconvenient truth for the argument that the Pope’s authority exists only in the Pope’s head and in those of the poor, benighted Catholics who follow him.

On account of we’re too dumb to recognize a circular argument and all.

 

[PC_Master]

If heresy were so visible, none would be deceived. And yet, many people are on both sides of the division between Roman Catholicism and other denominations. Clearly, we’re fallible, and so are you. I’m sorry you can’t accept that.

 

[Teflon93]

If heresy were so visible, none would be deceived. And yet, many people are on both sides of the division between Roman Catholicism and other denominations. Clearly, we’re fallible, and so are you. I’m sorry you can’t accept that.

The Arian heresy was quite visible (preached actively by Arius); yet some chose it anyway, for many of the reasons that Luther chose his particular heresies.

One cannot serve God and Mammon both. One serves Mammon for a variety of temporal reasons, one serves God for one and one alone: to love Him eternally.

 

[rad314]

If I weren’t mindless, I might comment on your arrogance. As it is, just hug your spiritual maturity.

 

[pneuma07]

An interesting premise (I actually do know many Protestants who behave like this).

More than a premise, I consider the post you are answering an outcome of arguments such as those by Joy and by Newman, as illustrated in the preceding post. The line is: the authority of the Church is rejected since it needs - so it is said - too strong a sacrifice of the intellect. What if , nevertheless, it is the alternative ways that do appear to assume too much ? My proposal amounts then to “let’s examine any alternative way. Can we see anything more consistent, more solid on both logic and historic ground, explaining better the origin of our faith, the origin of our knowledge about Christ ?” Let’s make explicit what we have to assume in order to reject the authority of the Catholic Church.

First, my God is alive. He is my authority. He guides me and instructs me, as I listen to him. Of course, since I’m fallible, and don’t always listen, it seems to me that I’m not always going to follow him and be in perfect obedience, but he chose to allow me that, and promised he’d lead us into all truth, so I don’t worry about it too much.

The claims of direct divine instructions do not bypass our questions. Not only because this can simply lead to exercises of unverifiable subjectivism ( which appears so far from the spirit of communion and unity), but because you need - in order to simply acknowledge the supposed instructions by the Holy Spirit as such - a knowledge about the christian message coming to you through Scripture or other sources which, IMHO, leads us back to the Catholic Church.

Second, I could make the argument that Roman Catholicism falls into a certain mindset. The idea of a single, authoritative head is very comforting. You can clearly know if you’re following God’s will or not, and thus it takes the uncertainty and spiritual maturity that is required of us out of the equation. It leaves mindless automatons whose faith in the RCC is absolute, regardless of whether they agree with all its teachings or not, and thus, produces “Christians”/U] who do not rightly divide the word of truth.
So you’re afraid about becoming not only a slave, but even a “mindless automaton”. Tell me, then: how can a mindless automaton interpret the Magisterium ? How can automatons explore theological opinions ? Does trusting anybody mean becoming authomatons ? Your fear, IMHO, would not survive a scrupolous examination of catholic life.

Finally, you still seem to have the impression that Protestants believe in some kind of relative truth. All Protestants will tell you that the truth is absolute.

They’ll also tell you they’re probably wrong about something, somewhere. Roman Catholics have been wrong (contradictory statements – at least one must be wrong), yet cover it up and explain it away, all because of the belief that the RCC cannot err. But how do you know that? And all of them will tell me something different about Christianity. Why should I prefer the expositions by one protestant brother and reject those of the other ones ?
And how can I know whether their differences are essential, if there is no agreement on what is essential ? Are we left here without a kompass ? The opposite way is getting a picture of Christianity ( eg through the path proposed above) that leads you to trust the Catholic Church.

But it’s your own reason which is the authority that causes you to have faith in the RCC in the first place.

And round and round we (or rather, you) go!

So, before becoming mindless automatons we too had used our reason . You see, I do not reject reason at all, both before and after accepting Christ and His Church. Certainly you come to Christianity with all of your being, emotionally as well as intellectually. I accept to become a child of the Church. I acknowledge that I am a little child, and my mother knows better than I do. After all, she is 2000 !

 

[Odell]

PC Master you make no sense

your telling me if you went back 2,000 years you yourself would tell the apostles who taught in unity that you could be wrong in what you teach. Yeah what your saying sounds good but YOU could be wrong.

They also would admit that they could be wrong is that biblical?

Do you see the apostles admiting what we say is the wisdom of God but we could be wrong.

GIVE ME A BREAK

 

[tdgesq]

But my knowledge and empiricism doesn’t agree with yours. What does that say – that one of us is wrong (at least) on each issue we have disagreement about.

Really. Couldn’t you possibly be wrong about that? Perhaps we really do agree but just misunderstand one another. Isn’t that possible? Here’s another one: isn’t it possible that everything we see and touch is really an illusion. Isn’t it possible?

What I’m saying is that your question - isn’t it possible - is a useless one that gives us no insight into understanding the issues. If we are going to use history and reason as a basis for understanding, then the question has to be what answer do they yield. Not whether there is some “possibility,” no matter how small, that you or I could be wrong.

But at least we do agree that one of us is right and one of us is wrong on the issue. And the only way to know which one of our positions corresponds to the truth is to use our logical faculties and to look at the historical record to decide.

But your whole string of reasoning relies on a particular interpretation of scripture and the ECFs.

True, but an interpretation not stemming from mere blind faith. Just like every other mode of interpretation that I use to make mundane decisions everyday, it is based upon reason and the empirical.

Absolutely! If you go read my posts, I’m pretty sure you’ll see many instances of me saying I could be wrong. I’m certainly in no state of delusion regarding my own status as a fallible human being which sometimes falls short of God’s desires for me.

The question isn’t whether you could possibly be wrong. The question is what do reason and history tell us. This is the way to avoid the circular argument that’s been suggested.

I’ve done this, and the evidence has been ignored repeatedly, on the grounds that it doesn’t mesh with the interpretations of the RCC. That, of course, ultimately leads to this very issue.

No, that it doesn’t mesh with the interpretations of the RCC is incidental. It’s that it doesn’t mesh with reason and history.

I’ve demonstrated several logical paths through which things, like the papacy, could have evolved though not originally present in the church, but with future generations seeing the evidence that exists. The problem is, again, it doesn’t mesh with Roman Catholic interpretation of those sources, and so most of you won’t really take the time to consider it.

I’ve been right there in the debates where you’ve set out your position. The ECF’s on the papacy and on the authority of Scripture. You defined criteria for the ECF’s on the papacy (it in fact changed several times throughout the debate) then you couldn’t successfully apply the same criteria to the authority of Scripture. I’ve considered it in debate with you multiple times.

Only if you start with having faith that the RCC actually possesses that infallible teaching authority. Otherwise, how are you to know their interpretations of scripture, etc are right?

Because I use reason and history as my guide for the conclusion that the RCC possesses infallible teaching authority. Not by blind faith.

You believe as you do because you believe those interpretations (possibly from being indoctrinated as a child, as many are, into a particular way of thinking). But why do you believe the interpretations?

Not only is that insulting, it’s also wrong. I base my interpretation on reason and history. It seems that you are the one who is insisting that our interpretations are all ultimately colored to the point that we can’t be honest with ourselves, even when the evidence doesn’t support our position. Is that how you view yourself?

Can you rationally and logically exclude the other possibilities? Have you actually taken the time to try to do that, or are your words just that…words? I strongly suspect the latter.

Yes, in public debate with you - several times.

(continued) . . .

 

[tdgesq]

That said, if you really can empirically and logically prove that the RCC is infallible in teaching, I’d be more than willing to read and consider it (in another thread). It’d have to be a pretty strong case to convince anyone, however, and would certainly require that you logically and rationally exclude other possible arguments and interpretations of your sources. It’s a big task, but if done correctly, it may well even convince some such as myself.

No, it does not require that I exclude other possible arguments and interpretations. Even if I were to exclude twenty other possible interpretations, it still wouldn’t demonstrate that my view is correct. All I have to do is show that reason and history support my view. If someone comes forth with a view that they claim is better supported by the historical record, then we compare the two and see which is likely and which is unlikely. I’ve been through this procedure dozens of times, including with you.

But if I’m wrong about one thing, I can be corrected of this and change my belief (as I have done many times in the past). If you are wrong about one thing, your whole belief system is in shambles, because you have no real reason for believing any of it except that the RCC said to.

This is silly. Just because I believe that the RCC is an infallible teaching authority does not mean that it’s dogmatic positions aren’t based on reason and the testimony of the Fathers. In fact, my belief in RC infallibility is continually reinforced by the fact that it’s teachings correspond to reason and history. My entire belief system would hardly be destroyed. But so what if it was? I don’t see your point.

But that really is getting back into that “my belief system is better than yours because I prefer that it works this way” and away from determining how God actually did it. As we all know, sometimes God’s methods are not within our understanding, so perhaps he did it “your way”, though it makes no sense to me. On the other hand, perhaps he did it “my way”, though it makes no sense to you. Aside from your faith that the RCC is right, what do you have to prove either side?

Well, maybe that’s the way you see your belief system, that it’s better than everybody else’s because you prefer that it works this way. And it looks like you’re ready to say, “you know, you have your beliefs and I have mine, and golly, we can just never really know who’s right.” I mean, if ultimately we all just have faith that’s based on some childhood experience, etc., to support our positions, then knowing the truth is impossible. That may be a position you apply to yourself and others, but I do not.

What do I have to prove my side?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2440564&postcount=9
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2442377&postcount=48
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2458876&postcount=88
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2544293&postcount=167
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2547480&postcount=221
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2547483&postcount=222

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2622480&postcount=7
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2624035&postcount=9
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2626923&postcount=22
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2628624&postcount=28
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2628992&postcount=33

All in debate with you. A stunning display by you of how the historical standards to which you hold the authority of the RCC do not apply equally to the authority of Scripture. The method - give the historical support for the authority of the RCC and then demonstrate the unreasonableness of your conflicting view. It’s already been done.

 

[inkaneer]

"…Only if you start with having faith that the RCC actually possesses that infallible teaching authority. Otherwise, how are you to know their interpretations of scripture, etc are right? You believe as you do because you believe those interpretations (possibly from being indoctrinated as a child, as many are, into a particular way of thinking). But why do you believe the interpretations? Can you rationally and logically exclude the other possibilities? Have you actually taken the time to try to do that, or are your words just that…words? I strongly suspect the latter.

That said, if you really can empirically and logically prove that the RCC is infallible in teaching, I’d be more than willing to read and consider it (in another thread). It’d have to be a pretty strong case to convince anyone, however, and would certainly require that you logically and rationally exclude other possible arguments and interpretations of your sources. It’s a big task, but if done correctly, it may well even convince some such as myself."

Continued…

REPLY: Let’s start with some basics. First of all protestants believe that God could and did inspire men to write infallibly what we now call the Scriptures. Therefore, we know that man, under the inspiration of God [Holy Spirit], is capable of teaching infallibly. We also know from the scriptures that Jesus promised the Apostles that they will be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit [John 16:13]. We know that the Apostles did not go off teaching different doctrines for the scriptures say they were of one accord [Acts 1:12-14] and [Acts 15:25]. Acts 15:28 tells us that the Apostles claimed direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. They did not consult scripture but rendered a decision on what seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit [Acts 15:28]. Acts 15 is important in another sense. A problem arose in Antioch that the church in Antioch could not resolve. Their solution was to appeal to Jerusalem where Peter and the other Apostles were gathered and the Council of Jerusalem ensued. Notice that at the time of this Council that the church had expanded beyond Judea and had commenced converting the Gentiles [Acts 10]. Most scholars place the date of this council in the years 47-51 AD. It certainly is before 53 AD when James is martyred. James is bishop of Jerusalem and therefore presides over the council that is held in his territory. The other Apostles had spread out. Peter we are told had left Jerusalem and had gone to Antioch and was its first bishop but turned the bishopric over to Elvodius and went on to Rome arriving there in 42 AD [Eusebius of Caesarea; The Chronicle (A.D. 303)]. In any event the Apostles were in Jerusalem and we see them still acting of one accord under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Following this counsel they will again disperse and be martyred one by one except for John who will live on till near the end of the first century. Peter will die in Rome [67 AD] along with Paul [63AD]. So that in 80 AD there is only one Apostle still alive and only one Apostle who retains the guidance of the Holy Spirit that was given on Pentecost.

Continued…

 

[inkaneer]

Continuing…

The scene now shifts to Corinth. Here another problem arises that cannot be settled by the local church. To what authority do they go for a decision? They follow the example set by the church in Antioch approximately 30 years before. But do they go to the Apostle John, the last of the Apostles for a solution? Nope! They go to Clement. Who is Clement? Clement is the bishop of Rome and the third successor to Peter [Linus and Cletus were 1 and 2]. So why go to Clement who was never an Apostle and was not included in those of Acts 1:12-14 when one of the original Apostles who was present and united in one accord in Acts 1:12-14 was available? The answer is simple. They recognized that the authority granted to the Apostles did not die with them but was handed down to their successors. So Clement was the successor to Peter. Peter was the Apostle who was given the keys. He was the Apostle who Jesus selected as his chief steward [Mt 16:18-19; See also Isaiah 22:22] Peter was the one who Jesus commanded to feed and to rule His flock [John 21:15-17] . The Corinthians recognized that Clement was now the one to go to not John. And didn’t Peter utilize his authority at the Council in Jerusalem? The scriptures say that there was much debate [Acts 15:7] but when Peter stood up and spoke everyone shut up [Acts 15:12]. Nobody else had commanded that respect. But did that inspired authority actually pass down from Peter to Clement? The Corinthians certainly thought so. But that doesn’t make it correct does it? So what happens if that inspired authority is not passed down? What happens if all inspired authority dies with the last Apostle in 100 AD? Well to me, if that did occur then God is mighty short sighted not to mention very forgetful. Didn’t God provide for a successor in the OT for the prophets? Didn’t He provide a successor to Abraham, to Moses, to Saul? Didn’t He provide a leader for His people n the Old Covenant? Now, in the New Covenant, after Jesus goes through the agony of the plan of salvation and establishes a church, God is going to turn His back on it and allow that church to go its own way and in the process violate the very promises He made [Mt 16:18; Mt 28:20]. Jesus said that the forces of Hell would not prevail against the church. How could hell prevail against the church? By sin? Sin is the result of man’s disobedience and that is passed down to other men So mankind sins but the church does not. The only way that hell prevails over the church is by the church teaching false doctrine. What is the mission of the church? Is it not to teach the nations the Gospel? So can the church actually teach a false gospel when Jesus said it will not happen??? Maybe you should contemplate what it means to have the authority given to Peter. Peter could bind or loose not only on earth but in heaven also. Who else has that power? No leader of any country or even the U.N. has it. They cannot even bind something on the whole earth and have everyone obey it. And that doesn’t even consider binding or loosening in heaven. Not one of the powerful men of the world had or has that power but a poor, impetuous fisherman from Gallilee did and so does his successors.

 

[agangbern]

S
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.

What then does you reason lead you to believe?

 

[pneuma07]

What then does you reason lead you to believe?

That it is not the best interpreter of Divine Revelation ever.
And that the best candidate to the job is precisely … the Catholic Church.