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

[PC_Master]

Besides neglecting the role of the still existing Sola scriptura protestants ( I understand you consider Sola Scriptura an heresy, but it is an aspect of historic and present protestantism) , this elaboration does confirm the central role of the “self” as a protestant principle.

Not really…on the one hand, we have God’s word, transmitted via the holy spirit, to individual men (and women, of course), who then interpret it as best they can. On the other (the Roman Catholic perspective) we have God’s word, transmitted via the holy spirit, to individual men (popes, or perhaps to many men within the whole magisterium of the RCC), who then interpret and write documents, give speeches and sermons…and then we have the individual men and women who hear and read these things, and interpret them the best they can.

In both cases, we have individuals who are required (due to ambiguity or lack of absolute and complete clarity on an issue) to interpret things. In both cases, we have individuals who receive (in theory) the same information, who come to different conclusions.

The appeal to the Holy Spirit does appear ancillary to this “self.centred” vision. Needless to say catholicism does not delete the self at all, IMHO, but sets it into an open dialogue with a verifiable living informant.

I’d say in the Roman Catholic case that the holy spirit appears ancillary to the “the church is right” vision. Additionally, while in theory the pope (and/or magisterium) can rule on any issue authoritatively and unambiguously, the fact that many disagree on core doctrines the RCC teaches shows that either this authority isn’t accepted by many Roman Catholics (thus showing it to be a failure), or that the magisterium has failed to actually rule on all issues where such is needed.

There is always, potentially, room for different interpretations. That is why you need a living verifiable informant.

So, if I, as a hypothetical devout Roman Catholic, write a letter to the pope, asking the specifics of a given question of faith which has thus far not been unambiguously defined, I’m guaranteed an answer? I doubt this is so, even from just a bishop. The only issues that are actually addressed are ones that seem prevalent in the current time, with mass disagreement on them.

Let’s remember that the main task of the Magisterium is not “defining” in itself , it is serving the Word of God, by guarding the deposit of the faith and being witness to it. It then “defines” if and when necessary to its task, every time using in adequate degree its authority.

If there were unity within the RCC, the magisterium would never need to define anything except to defend the faith to outsiders.

Catholics, as other human beings …think. I hope we agree on this. Thinking, interpreting leads or can lead to plurality of opinions. Could and should it be otherwise. ?

Agreed – and no, it should not be otherwise. But the question is – can this be called unity? I don’t believe it can be, and thus, the supposed disunity of protestants cannot be held against them.

Should we conclude that the catholic Church does fail her task, because there are plural views within her, or even because dissenters and heretics do sometimes come out of her in any century?

If unity is a requirement of the one true church, then yes. But it is not I that have made that a requirement – such a requirement is frequently claimed by Roman Catholics in an effort to give the RCC a leg up on Protestants in general.

Then we should certainly conclude that the Church of the apostolic time was a failure too.
We know she experienced continuous and grave divisions.

We do indeed know that, and we also can say with reasonable certainty that if the church of that day had disunity, we shouldn’t expect unity above and beyond that in a later generation of the church, whether Roman Catholic or otherwise.

I don’t expect it of either Roman Catholicism or Protestantism, but you do expect it of Protestantism, and that’s the problem. (Note that I’ve only pushed the point that the RCC is not united because it’s important to note that requiring it of non-RCC churches is a double-standard since the RCC itself doesn’t meet it.)

OK. Let’s accept “oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.”
Now consider please: can that be better served by the protestant principle or by the catholic one ( as illustrated above by yourself ) ?

Let’s say the law requires me to drive at no more than 45mph on a given road. I drive at 50mph, while you drive at 55mph. While I can say “it’s better to do what I do than what you do”, it doesn’t make my actions right.

Also, even assuming unity is a requirement of the true church (a point which you have not established), is it not possible to have unity in something other than the truth, and thus for a church which has such unity to be a false church?

For instance, if every Pastafarian (members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) genuinely believed that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world, they would be in unity (on that one issue), and yet they’d still be wrong. Unity on its own is nothing without being united with the truth.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Let’s suppose we have a shared definition of “christian”. ( I guess we could get it). Those christians who do accept the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as the best informant about
Divine Revelation, do have among themselves a tool of unity which is without comparison to anything the other christian brothers can have.

And that’s all the more reason to call the RCC a failure, for it seems to have as much disagreement among itself as a given protestant denomination has, but the protestants don’t have this “tool of unity”.

Anyway, I think we’ve pretty clearly established that a true unity is not possessed by any denomination, nor was it possessed by the apostolic church, and thus cannot be used as a criteria for determining what the true church is.

 

[kepha1]

**The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822) **
Jesus established only one Church. The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but *one *spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.
catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

*Having disenting members who are disobedient in no way means we have different or opposing doctrines. I fail to understand how anybody in their right mind can come to such a conclusion. When someone is in disagreement or rebellion they place themselves out of unity, which is a sadness to the Church. *
**Rom.12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. **

CCC813 The Church is one because of her source: “the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.” The Church is one because of her founder: for “the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body.” The Church is one because of her “soul”: “It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity.” Unity is of the essence of the Church:
What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."

1Cor.10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

The Church is an extension of the Incarnation united by the ONE BREAD, the Eucharist. The Church is not a symbol or a metaphor because the Incarnation is not a symbol or metaphor.

**Protestants reject Catholic unity because **
1) they have their own definition
**2) they have no Eucharist, and thus, have no unity. **

**IMHO, it is not sola scriptura that has ripped Protestantism into fragments, it’s because they have no Eucharist. They can’t understand how ONE BREAD today can be the same as the ONE BREAD 2000 years ago. They see it as different breads. **

Lastly, in order to redefine the Church with one, holy, universal and apostolic attributes:
**it is necessary that they redefine the Incarnation. Jesus said, “I am the Bread come down from heaven” **John 6:35,41,48,51.

Four times isn’t enough?

 

[Swan]

It is also worth considering that the Catholic Church, being so confident in its infallibility that it won’t even consider the possibility of error, has and does reach doctrinal conclusions that are inherently self serving and designed to preserve the power of the Church (at its height had during the Middle Ages) and which it sees falling away as the populace, now infinitely better educated, refuses to be spoon fed and starts asking questions. This seems like a very real possibility to me. Remember, the Church was once both a powerful secular and spiritual authority. And they didn’t want that authority questioned. The still don’t. So they deny the laity any say at all despite the fact that it is the people, the Body of Christ, who make up the Church - not the folks at the top.

There is also the posibility that the true church broke off long ago when the CC was in its most corrupt phase. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail - this could be interpreted in a variety of ways other than the self-serving one claimed by the CC. But, of course, if they aren’t going to even consider any interpretation but their own, the of course the entire premise for authority is indeed circular. The very fact that not all Christians agree speaks volumes against the CC, IMO.

The Reformation did not occur in a vacuum. The CC was anything but holy during that period (not that there weren’t holy members) but the leadership was very corrupt. Only the CC refuses to accept the possibility that perhaps Jesus had just had enough and one of the break away churches was the “true” one. From that time on it’s that church that the gates of hell won’t prevail against (whatever that means). He didn’t say it would always be the church called “catholic”.

 

[pneuma07]

I agree – and I’d also argue that the primary reason that such a single mindedness is impossible is because each and every one of us is farther away from being in unity with Christ …
I didn’t say such a concept of unity is workable in the real world. In fact I would agree that it is not. And that’s the very reason I can say with certainty that true unity does not

 

[kepha1]

It is also worth considering that the Catholic Church, being so confident in its infallibility that it won’t even consider the possibility of error,

Only fools think infallibility comes from the Church. What you are saying here is that the charisms that God Himself gives is corruptible. This statement proves your ignorance of infallibility.

has and does reach doctrinal conclusions that are inherently self serving and designed to preserve the power of the Church (at its height had during the Middle Ages)

Please provide one encyclical or official Church document that is self-serving and designed to preserve the power of the Church. This statement amounts to revisionism, and anti-Catholic hate speech.

and which it sees falling away as the populace, now infinitely better educated, refuses to be spoon fed and starts asking questions.

The Church invites questions from the populace. You have a paranoid view of a dominating dictatorship propagated by hate cults.

This seems like a very real possibility to me. Remember, the Church was once both a powerful secular and spiritual authority. And they didn’t want that authority questioned. The still don’t.

You must mean the Church’s unwavering moral stand on things like contraception. The only authority the Church has is on faith and morals. Sorry, fella, you are dead wrong.

So they deny the laity any say at all despite the fact that it is the people, the Body of Christ, who make up the Church - not the folks at the top.

Again, dead wrong. The Church recognizes the priesthood of all believers, and the laity do have a voice. And the Church does listen. I think you are jealous. The laity have more than “the folks at the top” to appeal to. The bible, the Code of Canon Law, the priests, the bishops. I think you read too much anti-Catholic hate literature.

 

[kepha1]

There is also the posibility that the true church broke off long ago when the CC was in its most corrupt phase.

This is too much. The “true church” you are referring to that broke off was led by apostates who broke off because of their immorality. Henry VIII broke off so he could have an illegitimate marriage and more power to himself, Luther was an anti-Semitic mad-man suspected by several of being demon possessed, Calvin would plot to murder anyone who disagreed with him, Zwingli slept around with women, and Knox would have anyone caught going to Mass flogged. I could go on about the atrocities of reformers killing other reformers, not just Catholics, and the 150,000 “witches” burned at the stake by your glorious reformist fanatics, but I leave you with this link on the Protestant Inquisition, all references by Protestant and secular historians:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html

The corruption of a small number of Church leaders pales compared to your so-called reformers, so let’s not even go there.

Sure, there was corruption in the Church during the middle ages, but not to the extent that your revisionist bigots make out to be. But they stayed in the Church, they did not invent a new religion that the reformers did. Sinners belong in the Church, and Jesus came for sinners, not the righteous. I’m sorry you think rebellion is some kind of solution. The Church set forth reforms at Trent, but no doctrines were changed. True reform comes from within, not by changing structure.

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail - this could be interpreted in a variety of ways other than the self-serving one claimed by the CC. But, of course, if they aren’t going to even consider any interpretation but their own, the of course the entire premise for authority is indeed circular. The very fact that not all Christians agree speaks volumes against the CC, IMO.

Well, if we can survive corrupt episcopates and Protestantism, we can survive anything. And the premises is not circular. You just refuse to take an honest look. And the authority issue is a red herring.

The Reformation did not occur in a vacuum. The CC was anything but holy during that period (not that there weren’t holy members) but the leadership was very corrupt. Only the CC refuses to accept the possibility that perhaps Jesus had just had enough and one of the break away churches was the “true” one. From that time on it’s that church that the gates of hell won’t prevail against (whatever that means). He didn’t say it would always be the church called “catholic”.

Since your attacks on Catholic unity have been defeated, you have to bring up the so-called reformation as another red herring. We have one set of doctrines that have never changed, not tens of thousands, many of which change every 20 years.

Go back to my post just before yours, it proves your definition of unity is a convenient invention.

So I challenge you to prove, by quoting specific teachings, which doctrines were corrupt, and not point the finger at individual behavior of leaders. I challenge you to give the exact official teaching or the year, or stop with this mindless bashing.

 

[kepha1]

From that time on it’s that church that the gates of hell won’t prevail against (whatever that means). He didn’t say it would always be the church called “catholic”.

“Catholic” It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Rom. 1:8….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures. I challenge any Protestant to show me any inferences to the name of their church in the Bible with the same convincing evidence.

“Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D., Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.

“Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name.” Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D**.**

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Hi Joy !
Nice to meet you again.

What is your present view on the question ?

Hi Pneuma,
Well, I’m right back where I was when I started this thread. I read through my first several posts and feel they best express where I am at presently.

I truly believe the closest we can get to the original faith as Jesus intended it is by examining the scriptures. The Scriptures are a record of the original, apostolic traditions, doctrines and practices. I don’t think our current doctrines, practies or traditions should differ much at all from the first. I believe the purpose of recording these things was to give the future, post-apostolic church a rule of measure with which to test future teachings, spirits, revelations, etc…

A week or so prior to the beginning of Lent I left the CC again and have not been back since. My convictions have definately been more solidified over time.

Peace,

 

[pneuma07]

Hi Pneuma,
Well, I’m right back where I was when I started this thread.
,

Dear Joy,

     how do you exactly refute now  posts number 206 and 207
     by ........yourself ?   :)

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

A refutation of my own posts:

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.

I don’t know if I would now consider it to be “ample evidence”. There does appear to be SOME support in ECF writings, but of the entiretly of ECF writings, only a small percentage seemingly support it. Regardless though - even if it were saturated with Catholic thought, it was not doctrine at that time, so there were differing opinions about those issues and the church could not rightly be considered apostate yet. Secondly, many of those writings can be interpreted different ways. I was using my Catholic bias to read a Catholic viewpoint into some of it.

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.

Yes, this is where I stand. The ECF writings could be saturated with Catholic thought and I would still question the orthodoxy of them based on the contradiction of Scripture and Our Lord’s promise of heresy.

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?

We can’t know 100% anymore than we can KNOW the CC is the OTC. But we choose to put our faith in what seems more likely.

How do we know Christ didn’t preserve His church via a Magisterium

? Why should I assume it was?

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. No, it is not an assumption b/c the Scripture is clear evidence that it all ended with the apostles or at least, very gradually went astray. It takes far more assumption to conclude that the church went on without error.

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,

But what would have been the purpose of recording only SOME of it unless at least what was recorded was sufficient for our salvation and ongoing faithfulness?

AND, the apostles never actually say that what THEY have written is sufficient (this is an assumtion based on: 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Actually, it is likewise an assumption that it is NOT sufficient, and if it is not, it begs the question: WHY NOT? And: DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

which was, at that time, referring to the OT

No, there certainly were NT Scriptures in circulation at that time, and we know that they were already considered Scripture (without a council to proclaim it so). And even if it was the OT being spoken of (which again makes no sense. Why would he be recommending him to the OT Scriptures above Christ’s teachings of the New Covenant? And even if it was the OT being spoken of, Timothy had the Apostles at his disposal and he didn’t need a Bible to guide him.

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! Believing the Bible should be our rule of measure does not mean ANY interpretation is ok. Like I’ve said before, people are just as prone to err in their following Catholicism as they are in their following the Bible. The problem is the same today as it was when Jesus walked the earth and people misunderstood HIM! If we want the truth we need to strip away the layers of muck that prevent us from understanding it. We need the proper disposition; to make our hearts right.

Cont…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

**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).

Scripture also says that the Word of God gives light to the simple. Indeed the simple in Jesus’ day understood Him w/out an interpreter! Maybe we should seek to be simple instead of learned. Afterall, unless you are like a little child…

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

No, the faith is living in the lives of those who believe, trust and obey Jesus. It is being handed down - sometimes not from person to person directly. But as Christians it is certainly our duty and privelege to try to hand it down, but intention doesn’t guarantee faithfulness.

**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/Traditions w/in it),

Yes, the church certainly is the pillar of truth in so far as it is living (and certainly always will live b/c the gate of Hell cannot prevail…). As long as their are people who are faithful to Christ in this world - even if it were only a handful - they would be upholding the truth. This does not mean the church has some extra-biblical truth.

**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.

There is no connection between the two. The gates of Hell not prevailing does not mean that “He who hears you hears Me” extends past the Apostles. Jesus said it to His Apostles. To believe it extends past that is truly an assumption.

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

). The Apostolic church of the Bible is clearly depicted. It doesn’t take special revelation to see what it was like. Certainly this church is not as easy to find or as popular as some of the massive Christian denominations we have today, but God does lead the sincere seeking heart. I’ve seen them - sometimes it is a small group meeting in someone’s home - sometimes a congregation of 100 or so - sometimes more… Maybe such a church in one area only consists of 2 people. But they are united, spiritually, in truth, and God does lead the sincere seeking heart. Every day people like these are led to one another to worship together, praise God!

And finally, probably the most convincing, biblical evidence I see:
*****Is the fact that the Apostles appointed successors. Truly - what was the point?

Again, does this ensure faithfulness? I can raise my child as diligently as possible in the faith and there is absolutely no guarantee they will not grow up to embrace the world instead of God.

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?

Absolutely! Even Jesus prayed for his Apostles! I’m sure the Apostles were uncertain they would remain faithful.

One would think they would have put more emphasis on writing and admonishing everyone to be as faithful to those writings as possible.

Why? Why do we think they didn’t put enough emphasis on writing? Why do we believe what they wrote was insufficient? It makes no sense!

But no - the emphasis seems to have been placed on oral transmission and appointing successors and admonishing them to be true to the faith.

Yes, certainly at first. These same Christians were expecting Jesus’ quick return. It probably hadn’t occurred to them that the faith needed to be recorded until many years later.

Aside from the Gospels, much of the NT is simply letters to the churches and its leaders.

Not simply letters. They were letters that were giving important instructions and were commanded to be passed around and read in the other churches. Clearly the content of those letters was considered inspired, and the post-apostolic church treated them as such.

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.

Yet not insufficient. Again, to say they should have written more is ridiculous. They certainly could have written more if they had felt the need, but they didn’t. Why? B/c all that was necessary was already written!

cont…

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

It seems clear that their intent was never to preserve Christ’s teachings via their writings.

No, it doesn’t . I love arguing with myself! I can be cocky

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.

That is why we have 4 gospels. And they needed not all write if everything necessary had already been written.

So, how biblical is it to believe that the church Christ established fell off the rails

It didn’t. Just like the Apostolic church of the Bible, heresies arose from within

and the only hope for its revival would be strict adherence to the 1500+ year-old Scriptures?

Not revival. It would have had to have disappeared first to have needed to be revived. The faithful left the church or were members of churches that did not fall into the errors that the other churches fell into. Later we see such groups being persecuted, tortured and put to death.

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)”?

Already addressed above.

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,

No, not immediately, and not massively.

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).

Again, there was no “revival”. The truth was always upheld in the faithful. What happened in the “reformation” was not revival at all. An attempt at reform, yes, but not a revival or a successful attempt at reform.

Btw I refute my own writings all the time. I’ve kept many journals throughout the years and have often gone back and answered all my errors. And mine are the only eyes to ever see those writings. It only makes sense to do the same here where many will read.

Peace,

 

[PC_Master]

Kepha1> Could you please stop being so hostile, and actually consider the words being put forth here like pneuma and others are doing, rather than blindly asserting that the RCC is right? Thanks.

(My apologies if that’s too blunt, but I honestly do tire of people refusing to listen sometimes.)

you go on speaking of something like an other-worldly sort of unity.

A heavenly unity…yeah, I suppose.

Maybe we could speak of a this-worldly sort of unity, for a Church which is in this world.

Sure – I can accept that a lesser degree of unity should be held by the one true church. However, what that requires is establishing what this unity entails, within the guidelines of scripture and very early church history. What it doesn’t entail, obviously, is unity of liturgy, practice of worship, and many other things that the RCC focuses on, and uses in its claim of unity.

In my view, the unity the true church holds is, at the core, a desire to follow Christ, wherever he leads – to find his truth, whatever it may be. Above and beyond this, the unity should extend to matters of faith and morality, not matters of practice and liturgy. It’s about what the members of the church believe, not about how they act or what words they hear in a sermon.

We saw the Catechism speaks about variety, multiplicity not in a negative way

That doesn’t mean it’s not a negative.

The Church does not appear to boast for herself enough unity according to you.

The problem is that the RCC boasts to have more unity than Protestant denominations have, when that’s simply not the case. It’s not that I expect the RCC to have total unity – I expect it to be flawed, just as Protestant denominations are. I just don’t expect it to claim that it’s not that way.

265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

We’re talking about unity based on visible things again, rather than based on beliefs?

• profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

So because they profess the same faith, they actually do have the same faith? That’s interesting – does that also mean that because Protestants profess to be members of the same church, despite being of different denominations, that they actually are so? Surely, you wouldn’t be espousing the position that professing something makes it so.

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

Aside from the obvious consistency within a given denomination, let’s look at inter-denominational issues here. Protestants share the same celebration of “communion”, by and large. Most of the denominations within Protestantism share baptism, marriage, some sort of ordination of clergy, etc.

• apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.266

Show me where scripture or very early church tradition says that “Holy Orders” as such are required for valid ordination.

But you find those teachings, stemming from the same catechism and the same Creed, proposed in Florida as they are in Oregon, in Canada as in Uruguay, in Holland as in India. I hope we agree this has something to do with a concept such as “unity”.

Agreed, but as I stated before, if those teachings are understood differently by those speaking or those hearing, it’s disunity. If those teachings are not in line with the truth, they don’t even matter, united or not.

…I cannot follow any argument leading to propose that the situation of Catholicism and of Protestantism are equal, or even similar.

What do we have in most denominations – one set of teaching. What do we have in most denominations – many individuals with differing interpretations of those teachings.

Seems similar to me.

To put it briefly: the magisterial Church is an extraordinary source of unity , whose fruits are far from being enough, for a number of reasons we could explore together. Protestantism simply does not have the source. Problems are therefore on a very different level.

And yet the result is the same – individuals who claim to be members of the same church, who disagree with one another on almost every topic under the sun…except maybe who holds the title of pope (and even then, different denominations which have split with the RCC over time claim different popes).

It seems to me that if Protestantism can maintain some unity without a central source, and yet the RCC can’t do better – this source isn’t of much benefit.

Hi Pneuma,
Well, I’m right back where I was when I started this thread. I read through my first several posts and feel they best express where I am at presently.

Joy – you seem to be on somewhat of a roller-coaster lately in terms of what you believe. Please know that you’ll be in my prayers. Just keep seeking the truth and you’ll find it.

I truly believe the closest we can get to the original faith as Jesus intended it is by examining the scriptures. The Scriptures are a record of the original, apostolic traditions, doctrines and practices. I don’t think our current doctrines, practies or traditions should differ much at all from the first. I believe the purpose of recording these things was to give the future, post-apostolic church a rule of measure with which to test future teachings, spirits, revelations, etc…

I’m right with you.

 

[pneuma07]

A heavenly unity…yeah, I suppose.

Sure – I can accept that a lesser degree of unity should be held by the one true church. However, what that requires is establishing what this unity entails, within the guidelines of scripture and very early church history. What it doesn’t entail, obviously, is unity of liturgy, practice of worship, and many other things that the RCC focuses on, and uses in its claim of unity.

In my view, the unity the true church holds is, at the core, a desire to follow Christ, wherever he leads – to find his truth, whatever it may be. Above and beyond this, the unity should extend to matters of faith and morality, not matters of practice and liturgy. It’s about what the members of the church believe, not about how they act or what words they hear in a sermon.

That doesn’t mean it’s not a negative.

The problem is that the RCC boasts to have more unity than Protestant denominations have, when that’s simply not the case. It’s not that I expect the RCC to have total unity – I expect it to be flawed, just as Protestant denominations are. I just don’t expect it to claim that it’s not that way.

We’re talking about unity based on visible things again, rather than based on beliefs?

So because they profess the same faith, they actually do have the same faith? That’s interesting – does that also mean that because Protestants profess to be members of the same church, despite being of different denominations, that they actually are so? Surely, you wouldn’t be espousing the position that professing something makes it so.

Aside from the obvious consistency within a given denomination, let’s look at inter-denominational issues here. Protestants share the same celebration of “communion”, by and large. Most of the denominations within Protestantism share baptism, marriage, some sort of ordination of clergy, etc.

Show me where scripture or very early church tradition says that “Holy Orders” as such are required for valid ordination.

Agreed, but as I stated before, if those teachings are understood differently by those speaking or those hearing, it’s disunity. If those teachings are not in line with the truth, they don’t even matter, united or not.

What do we have in most denominations – one set of teaching. What do we have in most denominations – many individuals with differing interpretations of those teachings.

Seems similar to me.

And yet the result is the same – individuals who claim to be members of the same church, who disagree with one another on almost every topic under the sun…except maybe who holds the title of pope (and even then, different denominations which have split with the RCC over time claim different popes).

It seems to me that if Protestantism can maintain some unity without a central source, and yet the RCC can’t do better – this source isn’t of much benefit.

.

Dear PCM,

                 the core point is then a comparative one: Catholic Church  versus....what exactly ?

You seem to propose versus Protestantism as a whole.

I could also consider a branch of Protestantism. We could also consider denominations, once we agree on a definition of denomination. We know there is a range of definitions from which the range of the number of denominations can derive.
(I do not even consider the 40,000 number. I guess we could reasonably define denomination to get a number anywhere between a few dozens and a few thousands, but that is not the matter here.). But we also have to face the reality of non-denominationalism in the picture. And the growing trend of “churchlessness”, or churchless christians. Believers who who have their own personal statements of faith.

As for the largest picture, we simply see that protestantism has proposed and does propose DIFFERENT messages, which can be contradictory with each other. Consider just OSAS. I cannot know your position on that, but I know I can receive teachings which are definitely in conflict with each other about OSAS within protestantism. I can be taught Sola Scriptura
( which is heresy for you).
You’re own example with sacrements ( or whatever the different communities call them) really does not fit. Communion is far from being considered in the same way . There was no possible agreement on that among even the reformers themselves. And, since you are from a baptist background, no need to remind how contradictory the conceptions about baptism are within Protestantism.

Protestantism does not produce simply different effects of the message. It has been producing since its birth different messages.

This comes, IMHO, from the very principle on which Protestantism was born: putting the “self” as the master of Revelation.

You can say catholics on the pews disagree among themselves, but, as long they are catholic, as long as their thoughts are really outside the orthodoxy of the Church, if they disagree they do so in spite of being catholic. Or because they are not catholic enough.

The disagreement among protestants is not so. It comes precisely from applying the principle. It comes, IMHO, from being seriously, coherently protestant.

 

[agangbern]

May I be refreshed about this thread. When can it really be said that an authority is a circular argument? What are the elements in order for an authority to be considered a circular argument?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

May I be refreshed about this thread. When can it really be said that an authority is a circular argument? What are the elements in order for an authority to be considered a circular argument?

It is not the authority that is circular, it is how we determine the authority that is circular.

If the authority is Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium, how do you show this? Catholics will start with the earliest Christian records (as they should), that is, the Scriptures. So they turn to the Scriptures as the most original authoritative source. IOW, they use the Bible as their first authority. The only way we can know the faithfulness of the post-Apostolic writings, teachings and traditions is to compare them to this earliest, most original source. Oddly, Catholics don’t see the contradictions of the Catholic faith when compared to Scripture, so they will consider the post-Apostolic writings, teachings and traditions to be a continuation of the original, Apostolic faith of the Bible.

I think the problem is that the way in which Scripture is treated in Catholic apologetics is such that it is one aspect of the Christian faith - setting aside tradition and magesterium as seperate entities, when in actuality all three are contained in Scripture (historically, of course - but it LIVES in Christianity in practice for all time). We see the church acting authoritatively in Scripture (magesterium). We see Apostolic tradition in action (sacred tradition). This is not to say that the modern Christian church cannot guide the faithful in matters of faith and morals - indeed it should! But let that guidance be rooted in the fullness of God’s revelation as we have it in Scripture. I think the Catholic church has done fairly well in this regard, but certainly not perfectly or infallibly. I definately see some contradictions as well as omitions - but it is faithful in some very controvercial issues. So, Scripture can be seen in a historical light, but it is at the same time the living word of God b/c it contains all the essential elements for our salvation in every age. And although it can be seen as the historical church (that of the Bible) it is also a living church so long as there are those who remain faithful to the same teachings and practices the first Christians held to. “Hold fast…”

Anyway, I’m carrying on and getting away from the original question again.

The answer is that the only way a Christian can test the faithfulness of any post-Apostolic teaching/practice/etc… is to compare it to the original source. Even Catholicism recognizes this meanwhile (illogically) rejecting sola scriptura. The CC says, “Scripture alone is not our authority. It is Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magesterium - LOOK, it is right here in the Bible!”

Peace,

 

[agangbern]

It is not the authority that is circular, it is how we determine the authority that is circular.

The title of this thread does not speak it that way. If that is what you meant, then I guess the title of this thread should be revised to express what you meant.

If the authority is Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium, how do you show this? Catholics will start with the earliest Christian records (as they should), that is, the Scriptures. So they turn to the Scriptures as the most original authoritative source. IOW, they use the Bible as their first authority.

Something is not accurate here.For the Church in truth does not use the Bible as their first authority. In other words, the authority of the Church did not come from the Bible. The Bible simply bear witness to that authority, it is not the source of Church authority.

The only way we can know the faithfulness of the post-Apostolic writings, teachings and traditions is to compare them to this earliest, most original source. Oddly, Catholics don’t see the contradictions of the Catholic faith when compared to Scripture, so they will consider the post-Apostolic writings, teachings and traditions to be a continuation of the original, Apostolic faith of the Bible.

Actually, what you call post-Apostolic writings do not contradict the bible but instead help in understanding the bible. By that, I do not see how the word “circular” would find a place here.

 

[utunumsint]

**Protestantism does not produce simply different effects of the message. It has been producing since its birth different messages. **

This comes, IMHO, from the very principle on which Protestantism was born: putting the “self” as the master of Revelation.

You can say catholics on the pews disagree among themselves, but, as long they are catholic, as long as their thoughts are really outside the orthodoxy of the Church, if they disagree they do so in spite of being catholic. Or because they are not catholic enough.

The disagreement among protestants is not so. It comes precisely from applying the principle. It comes, IMHO, from being seriously, coherently protestant.

Amen!!!

God bless,
Ut

 

[PC_Master]

the core point is then a comparative one: Catholic Church versus…what exactly ?

I agree it can be seen as a comparative issue, but most important in this is what the grounds of comparison would be. No doubt you would say “visible organization”, “a visible central authority” and “a visible teaching body” are criteria for this comparison. And here’s the problem – the Protestant model, and the Biblical model, don’t speak of that – they focus on unity of belief with the truth among each individual believer, whether they’re Jew or Gentile, etc. It’s about the belief in Christ and his teachings, not about membership in an earthly organization, or about which organization has visible leadership.

You seem to propose versus Protestantism as a whole.

Actually, my proposition is against the so-called “invisible church” – that is, the one true church, which consists entirely of those who truly desire to follow Christ’s teachings. Though each member of that body is imperfect, and may have a different understanding of those teachings, each member also shares a will to learn about and follow Christ, and so allows God to draw them closer to him.

As for the largest picture, we simply see that protestantism has proposed and does propose DIFFERENT messages, which can be contradictory with each other. Consider just OSAS. I cannot know your position on that, but I know I can receive teachings which are definitely in conflict with each other about OSAS within protestantism.

I understand – and yet, what’s the difference? I’ve met Roman Catholics who believed that you had to maintain certain good works to go to heaven. I’ve met others who believed that as long as you didn’t commit any mortal sins, it didn’t matter what you did. Still others believed that faith in Christ was enough, even if you didn’t maintain good works, or ever go to church. Clearly, there are individuals in any and every denomination who disagree with one another.

Further, in the RCC, the very fact that priests, bishops, and popes are human beings means that their understandings of tenets of faith will not be perfect, and thus we’ll see conflict there, like those who voted against papal infallibility (on the grounds that it isn’t found in the history of the RCC) at Vatican I. And this is among the teachers. So, we have teachers who disagree on things, and are presumably teaching these different interpretations.

I can be taught Sola Scriptura ( which is heresy for you).

You’re right – you can be taught something that’s in error. But I’ve heard many a tale of an RCC priest teaching in error. A concerned church member posts here telling others what their priest taught, and others simply respond “he’s incorrect”. Clearly, non-conflicting teaching is not something possessed by any denomination in totality.

You’re own example with sacrements ( or whatever the different communities call them) really does not fit. Communion is far from being considered in the same way .

Most denominations consider “communion” as a symbolic representation of Christ’s sacrifice. There is some agreement. And since I’ve seen numbers regarding the RCC as high as around 25% (I don’t remember the precise number – it could be a little higher or lower) that don’t hold to the belief in transubstantiation, it seems that you guys don’t consider it in the same way either.

Protestantism does not produce simply different effects of the message. It has been producing since its birth different messages.

The end result is the same. People disagree on what the truth is.

This comes, IMHO, from the very principle on which Protestantism was born: putting the “self” as the master of Revelation.

As I demonstrated, self is always involved. You seem to have this notion that Protestantism is bad because people aren’t really receiving revelation from the holy spirit as they think they are. Yet you think I am not allowed to think Roman Catholicism is bad based on the belief that the pope and other leaders of the RCC aren’t receiving such revelation? That seems like a double-standard. Where did Christ say that revelation would only come to popes and bishops?

You can say catholics on the pews disagree among themselves, but, as long they are catholic, as long as their thoughts are really outside the orthodoxy of the Church, if they disagree they do so in spite of being catholic. Or because they are not catholic enough.

You make a good point…let’s try it another way though, which I think fits just as well:

You can say Christians (of any and every denomination) on the pews disagree among themselves, but, as long as they are Christian, as long as their thoughts are really outside the teachings of Christ, if they disagree they do so in spite of being Christian…or because they are not Christian enough.

It’s the same thing, just considering the whole of Christianity as the church instead of just the RCC.

Continued…