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

[rad314]

1. History shows that the organization which has become the Roman Catholic Church was the church established.

Hmmm, I think I would phrase that a little differently and I hope you’ll find the change in the argument helpful. I would say, instead, that the historical record establishes that the one and only organization whose teaching has always and everywhere been fully consistent with the teaching given by Christ to the Apostles and then handed on by the Apostles is the Catholic Church. Logic, then, recognizes that the CC must be the Church He built.

I won’t be surprised if you say it’s just my faith that says that. Well, obviously those are the observational and logical underpinnings of my faith, but that faith is a tremendous gift for which I am at best inadequately grateful.

You know, PC Master, I was going to go through your #252 point-by-point, but your comment in response ot my suggestion about posting in ‘Ask an apologist’ gave me pause. You said: “It’s unlikely that that would help, as I’d just get surface apologetics, rather than real explanations that I’m after.” Now, here’s the thing. I might completely misunderstand the organization and intent of these fora, but I thought this one, on the ‘Catholic side’, would have reasonably intelligent ordinary Catholics who love the Lord and His Church – not professional apologists. I expect the professional apologists to be in ‘Ask an apologist’. Or considering that Catholic Answers has a staff of trained apologists who will spend as much time as necessary on a question, just calling them might be the best approach.

 

[PC_Master]

Hmmm, I think I would phrase that a little differently and I hope you’ll find the change in the argument helpful. I would say, instead, that the historical record establishes that the one and only organization whose teaching has always and everywhere been fully consistent with the teaching given by Christ to the Apostles and then handed on by the Apostles is the Catholic Church. Logic, then, recognizes that the CC must be the Church He built.

Interesting, so your argument might look like this:

Christ established a church.
The church he established surely would have maintained full consistency with the teaching of Christ to the apostles.
Only the RCC has maintained consistency with these teachings.
Therefore, the RCC is the church established by Christ.

It’s not totally unreasonable. The biggest flaws I see are these:

1. You’re still assuming that any error in teaching by this church (assuming it to be an organization in the first place) constitutes “the gates of hell” overcoming that church. This point needs substantiation.
2. You assert that only the RCC has maintained this consistency. This point needs tons of support. And by consistency, do you mean “not contradicting” or do you mean in complete agreement with, or what?
3. You need to support that the evolution of doctrine not only can, but was intended by God to happen, and that the evolution present in the RCC is in complete agreement with the message of Christ (as shown in scripture at the least).

You know, PC Master, I was going to go through your #252 point-by-point, but your comment in response ot my suggestion about posting in ‘Ask an apologist’ gave me pause. You said: “It’s unlikely that that would help, as I’d just get surface apologetics, rather than real explanations that I’m after.” Now, here’s the thing. I might completely misunderstand the organization and intent of these fora, but I thought this one, on the ‘Catholic side’, would have reasonably intelligent ordinary Catholics who love the Lord and His Church – not professional apologists. I expect the professional apologists to be in ‘Ask an apologist’. Or considering that Catholic Answers has a staff of trained apologists who will spend as much time as necessary on a question, just calling them might be the best approach.

The problem is that “Ask an Apologist” doesn’t allow for the back and forth conversation. Thus, I’ll get, at best, a well thought-out, but still somewhat canned answer. If the Roman Catholic apologetics I’ve seen to date are any indication, I’ll have questions and will see flaws in the answer, but will not have the opportunity to have them addressed in a coherent discussion of the topic. Thus, I find that ultimately a waste of time. At least here, I can explore the flaws in arguments more fully, and at least come out of it with a better understanding of what you folks believe.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

That is not logical – that’s a matter of faith. As to the logic – how am I to know that Satan didn’t influence someone to come my way to mislead me?

PC, doesn’t it take some matter of faith to believe in God? Doesn’t it take some matter of faith to believe the Bible? You cannot prove either or these either. Through logic and reason you look at what you have available to you (history, fulfilled prophesy, miracles, etc.) and you decide, based on that, to put your trust (faith) in it. Isn’t that how you have come to believe what you already do? That said, yes, of course it takes a measure of faith to believe in the RCC as the OTC, but using the same methods of logic and reasoning you did to conclude there is a God and the Bible is reliable.

On the one hand you are afraid Satan has deceived what can be deduced by logic, but on the other hand you want us to give you logical reasons to believe the RCC. Furthermore you admit that logic can be deceived, but isn’t it likewise possible (as you’ve already admitted) for one to be deceived in their interpretation of the Bible?

It isn’t that there isn’t enough “logical” evidence for the RCC, it is the fear of deception that prevents one from trusting in that evidence. But ask yourself what it would take to believe. I have denied the miracles and historical proof and even my own experiences as a Catholic. I’ve had to come to admit that I was probably headed toward total disbelief in anything b/c when it comes right down to it we cannot prove anything at all! So, if you can’t trust the logical evidence for the RCC (history, etc), then what else is needed? Supernatural? There is plenty of that as well. Private revelation? What if St. Peter were to appear and reveal it? There is no end to the possibilities of deception. Does that mean there is no possible way to verify something? I don’t think the kind of deception talked about in the Gospels is one of making it impossible to determine truth.

This may seem unrelated, but I see this much the same as another aspect of my non-C spirituality I am addressing: I am mid-way through “Evangelical is Not Enough” by Thomas Howard and I’m getting a lot of insight into the differences between Catholic worship and Catholic charism in general as opposed to the strict, by-the-Bible worship and lifestyle. As a non-C I would have seen the Mass, lifestyle and most things Catholic (as well as the majority of “nominal, professing Christianity”) as very carnal-natured; appealing to the senses: statues, incense, candles, in worship and in lifestyle: “worldliness”: wine, TV, musical instruments, “pleasure seeking”/entertainment, bold colored and “fancy” clothes, needless decorations at home etc… This may not be a perfect analogy, but I do see a similarity between the fear of being deceived about history, etc. by Satan in the question of Christ’s Church and the fear of being deceived into idolatry and pride through our senses:

Ignoring the fact that Jesus used tangible, earthly, created things in His ministry (mud, water, etc.), and especially considering the Incarnation where God (the spiritual) becomes man (the flesh), I was unable to see the importance of the material world in our worship and lifestyle. B/c of the Incarnation now everything we do (except sin of course) can be used to glorify God. I thought b/c there are dangers in going to the other extreme (idolatry or pride) that we should be cautious about using created or sensual, tangible things to incorporate into our worship (expect when Scripture requires it of us). I thought to avoid idolatry or pride we should avoid things that can lead us there (guilt by association). But as Howard puts it (something like this): you shouldn’t prevent a flood with a drought.

Anyway, the point of this is that in a sense this is the same thing: The fear of being decieved makes it impossible to accept the logical reasons. God gave us our intellect to reason and our senses to sense. If I cannot trust my senses to give glory to God for fear of idoaltry or pride, then perhaps you cannot use your intellect to find His Church for fear of deception. Everything can be deceived. Where does one draw the line?

cont.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

…cont:

Intention is everything. Whatever we do or use, when used or done rightly - with love and faith - is a glory to God. I do not need to starve my senses for the sake of “spiritual worship”. Then I am taking away from what I can give to God. Instead I can get everything God gave me involved in worship; everything from the senses He gave me to the things He created. Likewise, we do not need to starve the intellect or senses to determine God’s will (in this case, His Church). We do not need to use some strict methodology to determine it for fear of deception. We can use everything God gave us the ability to do: reason, logic, prayer, awe, contemplation, inspiration, etc… In fact, the more we narrow down our criteria for determining it, the further away we will probably get to recognizing it. Just like my austere, stark perception of “spiritual worship” vs sensual “carnal” worship, there is a problem with expecting to discover God’s will by some isolated, strict, methodology vs using everything at our disposal.

So, yes, it takes faith, but not faith from a vacuum. Faith is a choice. We cannot let fear prevent us from seeing truth.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Btw - I realize this possibly is a projection of what I have gone through, but I thought it worth posting since your comment about logic and deception struck a chord with me.

Also, wanting to give another 2cents - from my former confessor several years ago - a man who once worked at the Vatican (a Franciscan priest now almost 100 years old by the name Father Alphonsus Mary) – is a pamphlet he wrote about Proving the Truth of Our Catholic Faith. He says that the type of reasoning one would have used to come to faith in Jesus in His time, is the same type of reasoning we should be able to use to come to faith in the RCC. It was not solely through Jesus’ words that people believed, for many had previously claimed the same things as He, but also through the miracles that attested to the Divine Origins of His words, as well as the testimonies of others. He uses the story of the man born blind and healed by Jesus as an analogy to the kind of faith one must have. This man had heard the claims of Jesus (but could not prove them to be true) and had heard stories of the miracles He had performed (thought he himself had not seen any due to his blindness), but when Jesus asked if he accepts Him as God’s Spokesman and accepts His message, "the blind man reflects on the miracles which the stranger has worked…though he has not seen them, but he can somehow know the accounts he has heard are not lies. So he answers: “I believe you are from God.”. Then, “Insofar as you believe my message and that I come from God as His spokesman, receive your sight”. This is divine faith: “namely, accepting something on divine authority.”. There is also human faith and pious faith. “Accounts that are non-religious, which do not oppose good sense and are written by reliable authors, are believed with human faith. Accounts about holy topics reported by reliable authors and which in no wise oppose sound reason, faith, or good morals (although they sometimes tell extraordinary things) are believed with pious faith. Accounts in Holy Scripture are believed with divine faith.” (St. Louis Montfort) "To unreasonably judge a witness incompetent or untruthful, who reports something challenging, is rash judgment and sins against human or pious faith, depending on the subject matter. Of course, if the judgment is not rash, but reasonable, or we simply suspend judgment, then we do not sin. If we unreasonably reject some reported pious fact or divine prodigy not in the Bible, we sin against pious faith; that is, we are not duly seeking the Mightiest Master nor duly disposed to recognize evidences of His will. By pious faith, we discover premises necessary in order to have divine faith. That is, we learn thereby religion-related facts about martyrs, Saints, and miracles, and learn to appreciate the four marks of the Church. There are certain Catholics who, after many rash, unfair judgments which sinned against pious faith, woke up to discover that they no longer had divine faith, without which it is impossible to please God. The accumulation of false judgments had created a “credibility gap.” The premises were gone for acknowledging God’s signature on the revelation of divine Catholic faith.” This speaks quite well of me. How fitting it was that he gave me at that time, no doubt seeing the direction my doubt was taking me.

Point is, there is much evidence, not just biblical, historical, testimonial, miraculous or experiential – one cannot come to faith by isolating one of these areas, but needs to look at the whole of it and be duly disposed to recognize it as truth. If truly searching, look at the lives of the saints, and look at the well-documented miracles as well as the historical (ECF writings for example) and biblical evidence. Asking for “logical proof” will not bring one to the truth b/c then, it seems, one is looking for isolated, empirical proof which is against faith and is not how even people in Jesus’ time came to faith in Him.

Anyway, again, not sure this even necessarily applies here, but it certainly is a reflection of my own experience and maybe will enlighten someone!

 

[qui_est_ce]

your argument might look like this:

Christ established a church.The church he established surely would have maintained full consistency with the teaching of Christ to the apostles.
Only the RCC has maintained consistency with these teachings.
Therefore, the RCC is the church established by Christ.

The biggest flaws I see are these:

1. You’re still assuming that any error in teaching by this church (assuming it to be an organization in the first place)

It is an organization:
Matthew 18:15-17
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Which church? Also, see Acts and Council of Jerusalem where circumcision and dietary laws are discussed.

constitutes “the gates of hell” overcoming that church. This point needs substantiation.

No, this is the answer. You need to refute this. (see Matthew 16:17-19 below) The Church cannot teach error.

1. You assert that only the RCC has maintained this consistency. This point needs tons of support. And by consistency, do you mean “not contradicting” or do you mean in complete agreement with, or what?

Cannot contradict, must agree or flow logically from. There is only ONE Church established by Christ on Earth. Notice Acts says THE CHURCH, not the churches througout. etc.
Acts 9:31
Then **the church **throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

Matthew 16:17-19 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven.” .
What does binding mean to you? What are keys? These are symbols.

1. You need to support that the evolution of doctrine not only can, but was intended by God to happen, and that the evolution present in the RCC is in complete agreement with the message of Christ (as shown in scripture at the least).

You are looking at history backwards. You are going from today to then. This is what leads to bias and error. In order to be unbiased, we have to start with what was then. What did the ECF’s believe? What did they say, what did they write? Then move down history and see the evolution, or the growth of the mustard seed which grew into the largest of trees and birds made their nests in its branches.

The problem is that “Ask an Apologist” doesn’t allow for the back and forth conversation. Thus, I’ll get, at best, a well thought-out, but still somewhat canned answer.

Canned? Your problem is that the truth is repeated to you over and over, so you call “at best, a well thought-out answer” canned? The purpose was to get you to go somewhere for an honest explanation of the teachings of the CC, like go to the top, not amateurs like some of us.

 

[qui_est_ce]

This is exactly my point – you interpret the ECFs in a certain way. I interpret them differently. I don’t think most of them had any idea of the concept of transubstantiation, but rather were speaking symbolically. I don’t know that my interpretation is right, and the only thing either of us can base our interpretations on, ultimately, is our faith. Unless, of course, you can logically and reasonably exclude the possibility of the “body and blood” of Christ being a symbolic connection when connected with the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist/etc.

Your interpretation is incorrect:

Contrary to what you say, we know the Early Church believed in the Real Presence.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

This is not symbolic

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html
Whether or not this actually happened is irrelevant to my point which is the BELIEF in the Real Presence was there.

ST. JUSTIN MARTYR
St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.

“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”

" First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.

What does Jesus say at the Last Supper “This is my body, DO THIS”

 

[PC_Master]

To be clear, I’m not interested in playing these semantical games that some of you seem to be so interested in.

tdgesq> I still hope that you’ll reply in the logical fashion I previously suggested.

Joy> Much of what you say has value, but I still believe there should be a logical and reasonable way to explain history which not only lends plausibility to the RCC view, but in fact eliminates other possibilities.

qui est ce> Your interpretation works if “the church” refers to an organization, but that’s a huge assumption on your part, and thus it must be proved. I believe tdgesq understands my need for logical support of such, and I hope he’ll be willing to reply with such support.

Regardless, most of your response, like many of your responses, strike me as lacking compassion and certainly lacking the ability to rationally reply to the points made, instead of evading them. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding you, and you truly don’t realize that you’re doing this, but I don’t know for certain either way. I’ll be praying that God will guide you in these aspects.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding you, and you truly don’t realize that you’re doing this, but I don’t know for certain either way. I’ll be praying that God will guide you in these aspects.

Or perhaps we are simply misunderstanding you, and you truly don’t realize what you’re doing either. Either way, we are ultimately confident in our faith whereas you are apparently not confident in your faith.

We’ll be praying that God will guide you in these aspects too.

 

[pneuma07]

tdgesq> I still hope that you’ll reply in the logical fashion I previously suggested.

Joy> Much of what you say has value, but I still believe there should be a logical and reasonable way to explain history which not only lends plausibility to the RCC view, but in fact eliminates other possibilities.

Dear PCM,

   maybe we are at a crux of the whole issue here.

I can be wrong, but catholic Fundamental Theology does not teach that we can and must logically eliminate any imaginable alternative with mathematical certainty. Are we speaking about Religion ?
Why are we Christian, in the first place ? Let’s see. I believe
the Resurrection, as central event of our faith. But I cannot show an agnostic that I can eliminate any alternative explanation
of what we believe the Resurrection of Our Lord by mathematical demonstrations ( BTW, if anybody can, I’d be extremely interested in getting to know how). What I can do ( well, what I
believe I could do ), is to show that the alternative explanations that have beeen proposed are unplausible, or far far less plausible that the one we believe. It looks a rational approach, doesn’t it ?

Please, do not dismiss reasonable plausible arguments looking for a supposed 100% demonstration. I doubt anybody can get that. Remember your own important warning not to play God. We can reach and offer profound persuasion, but not geometrical demonstrations.
We build our faith by the precious contributions of every single plausible “brick”. Keep and guard any plausible observation you are offered. By systematically dismissing them, we all could be lead to skepticism or simply nowhere.

And with them you can possibly build a framework of cumulative evidence. A framework whose alternatives appear unplausible, or even highly unplausible. A framework of harmony and coherence. You can get that !

So, if Joy’s observations have value for you, do not see them as a failed attempt to give you certainties ( probably we are all going to always fail under such a point of view), but as a (at least potential ) precious contribution to build a new solid and reasonable faith.

In this spirit, elaborate please eg on this question too :

" Is it to be expected, is it plausible, that the Glory of the Incarnation and of the Resurrection, the Glory of the whole objective Divine Revelation we believe we have received in Jesus Christ, can produce merely the infinite “That’s your interpretation of the passage, but mine is…” or " So says “your " Holy Spirit, but “mine” says…” ?

Before you reply " Perhaps it is not plausible, but certainly that does not mean I can or must trust the Catholic Church", consider that the spirit of this or any other point should simply be, IMHO
" In what direction does that make move a step ?" or “Can it be a single brick to build a catholic view ?”

 

[PC_Master]

pneuma> I apologize if it appeared I was requesting an absolutely airtight proof. That’s not my intent. I’m just looking for some reasonable amount of certainty (which would at least be more certain than any other viewpoint) – an explanation that’s not immensely speculative.

To kind of exemplify the issue – I often hear that Protestantism is wrong because it split from the one true church that Christ established. But yet none has proved (or even really tried to do so) that Christ ever intended to establish an organization, and certainly not that the RCC is precisely that organization. You might say that the RCC is right because it’s in line with God’s teachings – and yet it doesn’t appear that way to me when I look at history.

Hopefully you understand where I’m coming from, and won’t play the semantical games others are trying to.

I look forward to any logical explanations you might have to offer.

 

[qui_est_ce]

To be clear, I’m not interested in playing these semantical games that some of you seem to be so interested in.

I am not sure to which semantics you are referring?

.

Joy> Much of what you say has value, but I still believe there should be a logical and reasonable way to explain history which not only lends plausibility to the RCC view, but in fact eliminates other possibilities.

that has been presented over and over to you here and in other threads. You refuse to believe.

qui est ce> Your interpretation works if “the church” refers to an organization, but that’s a huge assumption on your part, and thus it must be proved.

In light of the historical evidence presented to you, it takes a huge assumption on your part to believe the Church is not physically present on earth.

Regardless, most of your response, like many of your responses, strike me as lacking compassion and certainly lacking the ability to rationally reply to the points made, instead of evading them. Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding you, and you truly don’t realize that you’re doing this, but I don’t know for certain either way. I’ll be praying that God will guide you in these aspects.

Not sure what you are saying here? It looks like you saying that since you don’t accept our replies as answers to your question, we are being uncharitable?

Regardless, most of your response, like many of your responses, strike me as lacking compassion and certainly lacking the ability to rationally reply to the points made, instead of evading them.

With all the work that went into posts here and in other threads, do you consider this a charitable or compassionate response?

A forum post I once read said…

"If the pope said one must eat peanuts to be saved, then I’m going to the store to buy up peanuts."The poster wasn’t kidding. He was quite serious.

So, if the pope really did say one must eat peanuts to be saved, would you go buy peanuts?

You consider yourself charitable and compassionate, although you have been asked you change your signature because it is offensive and out of context? If you consider honestly researched answers as uncharitable, then you are are certainly reaping what you sowed.

 

[agangbern]

To kind of exemplify the issue – I often hear that Protestantism is wrong because it split from the one true church that Christ established. But yet none has proved (or even really tried to do so) that Christ ever intended to establish an organization, and certainly not that the RCC is precisely that organization…

Jesus prayed, “Holy Father, keep in thy name those who thou has given me, that they may be one even as we are. …I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world…Sanctify them in the truth. Thy word is the truth. Even as thou hast sent me into the world, so I also have sent them into the world…Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me, that all may be one…”
Would somebody tell me how an unorganized people, people having opposing fundamental beliefs among themselves, could be considered as one?

 

[inkaneer]

To PC Master: One possible answer to the question of whether the Catholic Church is the church established by Jesus Christ is the historical record. I will assume that everyone is agreed that Jesus did say He would establish a Church and that the forces of hell would not prevail against it. That is in Mt 16:18-19. Another assumption is that Jesus also said He would remain with His Church until the end of the age. I will also assume that everyone will agree that that church did come into existence on Pentecost Sunday following the Resurrection and Ascencion of Jesus. And I will also assume that Jesus established only one church with one truth. Now if you do not accept those basics then stop right here and go back and read scripture. But if those basics are acceptable then let us proceed. What we are looking for then is that early church in the 21st century. So how do we find it? Well one way is to take all of the christian denominations and eliminate those who either do not claim a history that goes back to the early first century. That will eliminate almost every protestant denomination. Of those remaining we will then eliminate all those who cannot prove a history going back 2,000 years. When I do that I get only the Catholic Church and that includes the Orthodox and Coptic Churches. But none of the protestant denominations makes the cut. I do not find any Lutherans in the 10th century or any Baptists or Presbyterians in the 12th century I don’t find any Anglicans in the 13th century or Methodists in the 15th century. But you do it and tell me how many protestant denomninations you come up with. Then we can discuass them individually.

 

[PC_Master]

In light of the historical evidence presented to you, it takes a huge assumption on your part to believe the Church is not physically present on earth.

1. It should read “In light of qui est ce’s interpretation of the historical evidence…”
2. The church consists of all those who have a genuine belief in, and desire to follow, Christ. As we are physical people, yes, the church is physically present on earth. That doesn’t mean it’s an earthly organization such as the RCC claims. The church is an organism consisting of those who wish to follow Christ, not a hierarchy.

Not sure what you are saying here? It looks like you saying that since you don’t accept our replies as answers to your question, we are being uncharitable?

No, I’m saying you specifically are uncharitable. There are a couple of charitable posters in this thread, and they don’t agree with my views. I hope to hear more from them.

You consider yourself charitable and compassionate, although you have been asked you change your signature because it is offensive and out of context?

It’s completely in context. I can find the original forum post if you doubt that. The original poster certainly doesn’t seem to have minded, nor has he accused me of taking his words out of context, as far as I can recall. If you’re charging that this is offensive – on what grounds? It’s an honest question on my part, taken from the absolute faith of a certain poster on these forums.

If you consider honestly researched answers as uncharitable, then you are are certainly reaping what you sowed.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of what you’re posting, but that doesn’t equate it with charitability. I am certain you believe what you’re posting, but your unwillingness to address the questions I’ve asked, in the manner that I’ve asked, is uncharitable. I’ve tried, as best I can, to try to consider the Roman Catholic view on this. Heck, that’s why I came here in the first place – to try to better understand that view. I’m only asking that you do the same.

Jesus prayed, “Holy Father, keep in thy name those who thou has given me, that they may be one even as we are. …I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world…Sanctify them in the truth. Thy word is the truth. Even as thou hast sent me into the world, so I also have sent them into the world…Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me, that all may be one…”
Would somebody tell me how an unorganized people, people having opposing fundamental beliefs among themselves, could be considered as one?

The whole of Protestantism doesn’t fulfill this, but neither does the whole of Roman Catholicism. And if you go back to considering things like the Great Schism, it’s pretty obvious that the church at large has failed to live up to the prayer of Jesus.

Regardless of all that, I’ve been asking for proof that the RCC is valid – disproving Protestantism does not provide that.

I will assume that everyone is agreed that Jesus did say He would establish a Church and that the forces of hell would not prevail against it.

The problem here is when you say Church, you take it to mean an earthly organization. When I say church, I mean it to be a collection of followers of Christ. We need to start there.

So how do we find it? Well one way is to take all of the christian denominations and eliminate those who either do not claim a history that goes back to the early first century. That will eliminate almost every protestant denomination. Of those remaining we will then eliminate all those who cannot prove a history going back 2,000 years. When I do that I get only the Catholic Church and that includes the Orthodox and Coptic Churches. But none of the protestant denominations makes the cut. I do not find any Lutherans in the 10th century or any Baptists or Presbyterians in the 12th century I don’t find any Anglicans in the 13th century or Methodists in the 15th century. But you do it and tell me how many protestant denomninations you come up with. Then we can discuass them individually.

It’s a nice straw man, but it’s based on the assumption that there must be a continuous traceable organization that goes all the way back to the time of Christ. I guess we have to start there.

 

[pneuma07]

pneuma> I’m just looking for some reasonable amount of certainty (which would at least be more certain than any other viewpoint) – an explanation that’s not immensely speculative.

But yet none has proved (or even really tried to do so) that Christ ever intended to establish an organization, and certainly not that the RCC is precisely that organization.
.

Dear PCM,

Premise 1 What I am going to write is not as important in itself , from my point of view, as stressing the value of plausibility. Particularly cumulative plausibility. That is a paramount methodological point, IMHO .
Premise 2 I am not so ambitious to think of this as something more than of a brick of plausibility.
Premise 3 Hopefully I am not going to be self-contradictory.
Dunno whether this meet criteria for “logical” expositions.

That said and underlined here is my requested :twocents:

Christ speaks only twice as we know about what He calls “church”.

In the famous pericope in Matthew 16 you have “…I shall build my church”. You have a singular. Christ’s Church is one.

The other pericope in Matthew with “… tell the church”. Here you have a visible congregation.
So you have visible congregations, belonging to one Church.

Has the Church a visible earthly leadership ? We saw eg in Heb 13:17 that this is the case. So we have one visible organized Church.

Is the organization and leadership trans-congregational ? It sure is, in the apostolic time, if we look at Paul’s pastoral cares.

Does this trans-congregational structure cease after the Apostles ? Clement’s first letter to Corinthians strongly points to the opposite. So far I cannot see only an unstructured set of followers of Jesus.

Does this leaderhip go astray in the following generations ? That means assuming very much, IMHO. Please answer Post 116, points A and C. The connection between Church and Scripture is a fundamental, unescapable issue, even for non Solascripturaists, as every poster here.

Now, if we accept a continuous and faithful organized Church and see it in the Fifth century, it becomes difficult, IMHO, showing an essential discontinuity between what you can see in the Fifth century and the Catholic Church you see today.

We could go deeper on any necessary point.

TBC later

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
Jesus prayed, “Holy Father, keep in thy name those who thou has given me, that they may be one even as we are. …I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world…Sanctify them in the truth. Thy word is the truth. Even as thou hast sent me into the world, so I also have sent them into the world…Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me, that all may be one…”
Would somebody tell me how an unorganized people, people having opposing fundamental beliefs among themselves, could be considered as one?

The whole of Protestantism doesn’t fulfill this, but neither does the whole of Roman Catholicism. And if you go back to considering things like the Great Schism, it’s pretty obvious that the church at large has failed to live up to the prayer of Jesus.

“The Church at large”? What do you mean by that? Do you think that the Holy Father did not grant Jesus’ prayer, "that they may be one as we are"?

The problem here is when you say Church, you take it to mean an earthly organization. When I say church, I mean it to be a collection of followers of Christ. We need to start there.

“A collection of followers”. Who collected them? And when they were thus collected, who among them has the authority to call all of them to a general meeting or fellowship?

 

[agangbern]

It’s a nice straw man, but it’s based on the assumption that there must be a continuous traceable organization that goes all the way back to the time of Christ. I guess we have to start there.

Jesus said, “And behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” If the line was cut somewhere sometime, what happened to the assurance of the Lord that He will accompany the Church “all days”, if there was a day that there was no Church? If it was not cut somewhere so that Jesus’ guarantee be hold true, how shall we trace and identify that continuous line?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Hi again, PC. I see you already have a lot of questions here to consider, but I would just like to add a quick one. You said:

1. The church consists of all those who have a genuine belief in, and desire to follow, Christ. As we are physical people, yes, the church is physically present on earth. That doesn’t mean it’s an earthly organization such as the RCC claims. The church is an organism consisting of those who wish to follow Christ, not a hierarchy.

How do you know that those who compiled the canon of the Bible - whether you believe it to have already been universally excepted or decided officially by the magisterium - were those who have a genuine belief in and desire to follow Christ? How do you know they were part of that, general church you believe Christ established (vs an organization)?

If the canon wasn’t decided by the organized, CC of the 5th century and was already infallibly, universally accepted, on what basis can you know it is infallible? How do you know whether or not that universally accepted canon (if it was universally accepted as you seem to believe) was not a product of early apostacy? Jesus said error would arise from w/in the church itself, and He also said that the way is narrow and straight and few find it. Following the universally accepted theory seems dangerous grounds to accept the Bible knowing that in the case of Christianity there isn’t really safety in numbers.

Don’t you see the need for there to have been an earthly authority (an organized, infallibly led church) to even consider the Bible?

And yes, I agree that generally speaking those who love God and seek to do His will are members of Christ’s church. And, btw, the RCC also teaches this, but that the RCC has the fullness of truth and of the Christian faith - that based on: *For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: *

*Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. **Romans 2:14, *
To one that has been given more, more will be expected. If we come to realize that the RCC is the OTC we are obligated to reconcile to Her. But for one who does not have the capacity or means (through disability or disadvantage for example) to discover this, they are considered a part of the church if they would have had that desire. Of course, if the person is hardhearted and has no desire for truth anyway they are not. I can’t find a catechism reference for this teaching - but I know it is official RC teaching - similar to the teaching on baptism of desire.

Peace

 

[pneuma07]

Here we are.

If ( big if ? ) you consider it plausible that we have in the V century the Church built by Christ on the famous rock, through which we receive Scripture as it essentially is today ( minus the deuteros for post XVI century western communities), then not only it becomes difficult to see radical discontinuities up to the XXI century Catholic Church, but it is ( more or less) problematic for the said post XVI century western communities to claim any substantial continuity with that visible organized Church back in the Fifth.
We probably do not need to explore why.

Moreover you have the " Is it to be expected, is it plausible, that the Glory of the Incarnation and of the Resurrection, the Glory of the whole objective Divine Revelation we believe we have received in Jesus Christ, can produce merely the infinite “That’s your interpretation of the passage, but mine is…” or " So says “your " Holy Spirit, but “mine” says…” ?. That, if shared,
rules out by itself the possibility that the Church built by Christ on the rock is an invisible container of visible “unlike-minded” communities. Ie the theory according to which any faith community is manifestation on equal footing of the said supposed invisible Church. That points to the permanence of a qualified
informant, guarding and serving the Word of God.

Other hint:

• 14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? * ( Rom, 10)

We received Jesus’ message, and we can believe, because there has been Apostolic Succession. ( allow to forget here the determination within Apostolic Church of the one most faithful )
Not that there is not, of course, christian faith within western post XVI century communities. But that faith rests on the heritage they received. And it risks being eventually brought away and away from orthodoxy, generation after generation.
Who indeed sent the preachers of those communities ? No self-appointment for Scripture: “how can they preach unless they are sent ?” . They will say ( simply because that is the only possible way out) they are appointed by the Holy Spirit. And what signs witness to that extraordinary direct appointment ?

OK Enough to begin with. The floor is yours.