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

[guanophore]

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,

I think when you get into the history of the Church you will find that a great deal of consideratin has happened consistently over the last 2000 years.

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.

I think if you study the concept of *sensus fidelum *you will find that this is not the case

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.   The very fact that not all Christians agree speaks volumes against the CC, IMO.

Do you not believe that God gave humans the capability to rebel against truth?

. 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.

The CC did accept responsibility, which is what the counter reformation was all about. However, one must understand revelation based on all previous revelation. Jesus gave His promise that He would not “have enough”. On the contrary, He promised to be with them “until the end of the age”. He is not a faithless parent!

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”.

The gates of hell are the passage into error. Once the Church begins to teach error, one has passed through the gates of hell.

 

[guanophore]

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…

Will you be sure to wear a veil, and be silent in church?

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,

This is great! You also spared yourself all that ridiculuous mortification of the flesh!

Who needs it?

 

[guanophore]

 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.

I don’t know how much time you have, because I know you are getting ready to go get that believers baptism but I would like to see the “clear evidence” of scripture that “it all ended with the Apostles”.

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?

The Rock upon whom Christ built His church has the answer to your question:

2 Peter 3:1
3:1 This is now the second letter that I have written to you, beloved, and in both of them I have aroused your sincere mind by way of reminder;

It was not so that the Teachings of the Apostles could be abandoned, but so that people would have a reminder.

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? 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.

This is one of the best evidences that the Scripture was never meant to be separated from the Sacred tradition that produced it.

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.

Something we are in agreeement about! Praise the Lord

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…

Well, keep in mind that David wrote that Psalm, and he was talking about the Word that came to him prophetically as well as the written word.

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.

This is what the Apostolic Succession is all about. The reason for the guarantee is Christ, that he is able to watch over His word to perform it, and not the fallible men who receive 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.

If the Church did not have this, then how was the Bible formed?

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.

I understand your point here, but I think they are connected. According to Christ, authority rests in Truth. In Him is all Truth, and that is why He was given All Authority. He gave this to the Apostles. In fact, the promise would have to extend, because teaching error is passing through the gates of hell.

God does lead the sincere seeking heart.

As I am sure He will lead you.

Even Jesus prayed for his Apostles!

Actually, a close examination of the text shows that Jesus only prayed for Peter. Jesus said that Satan desired to sift all of them, but says “I have prayed for you (Peter ) singular that your faith may not fail.” This is why Catholics say that we must be in union with the Successor of Peter. Jesus upholds Peter, and all those in union with him.

Clearly the content of those letters was considered inspired, and the post-apostolic church treated them as such. 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.

The Apostles and their successors never imagined that the Scriptures would be separated from the Sacred tradition that produced them.

 

[guanophore]

I love arguing with myself! I can be cocky

We found yet another thing upon which we may agree!

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.

You are braver than I! I don’t know that I could purport such doublemindedness to the world!

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?

I think Joy was saying that the authority of the church comes from itself, or is testified to by itself, instead of God. If that were true, it would be circular in the same way that Scripture as an authority is true. Scripture, the SS say, is the authority because it says so of itself.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I don’t think this is true at all. At least, I have never seen a Catholic do this. Knowledgeable Catholics know that nothing in the Catholic faith comes from Scripture, but from the Teachings of Jesus. He is the original and authoritative Source. The NT is a reflection of what the Apostles received from Him. Therefore the NT is not the “source” of Catholic teaching, but the out come of it.

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.

T’his is not odd for Catholics, since Catholics know that the whole of the NT came from Sacred Tradition, and reflects the faith and practices of Catholics. People who think there are Contradictions don’t undestand one or the other.

 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.

That is just it, though. The fullness of God’s Revelation is not limited to Scripture!

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.

Well, basically are you not saying that Christians failed to hold fast, and that is what invalidates the Catholic Church, and the Apostolic Succession?

 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!" :rolleyes:

Peace,

I agree that it must be compared to the Source. However, the Source is not scripture alone. When Catholics point to the Authority in scripture, it is another validation of what comes by way of Tradition. The two were never meant to be separated.

 

[PC_Master]

Hi PCM,

I’m going to take a couple of days to reply. I have very little time, but I also don’t want to give you a knee jerk sling shot reply. I think your points are valid and deserve a thoughful answer. So God bless, and stay tuned.

Ut

I’m glad you’re not going to just reply quickly. I’ve taken breaks from this place now and again as my studies (both spiritual and educational) and schedule required. Take all the time you need – I’ll be here when you get back, most likely.

Do you not believe that God gave humans the capability to rebel against truth?

You believe that, and yet you believe he interfered with that to protect and guide the RCC?

The gates of hell are the passage into error. Once the Church begins to teach error, one has passed through the gates of hell.

Please address my description of the error of your assumption, given above. You need to take the context of the “gates of hell” (aka “jaws of death” – I like that particular translation…it fits) and the location in which Christ was speaking into consideration to understand what he meant by saying “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.

To summarize – it means that paganism and satanic influence will not overcome the truth.

…nothing in the Catholic faith comes from Scripture, but from the Teachings of Jesus. He is the original and authoritative Source. The NT is a reflection of what the Apostles received from Him. Therefore the NT is not the “source” of Catholic teaching, but the out come of it.

If, as you say, the NT is a reflection of the faith of the apostles (which I agree with), can we not consider it an accurate reflection?

Moreover, let’s consider that any verbal tradition supposedly passed from one generation to the next is inherently flawed, for the same reason that playing a game of “telephone” usually results in a different message being received by the last player than was given by the first. If we eliminate verbal communication as being reliable, the written record is much more important. And if that written record doesn’t contain reference to the papacy, confession to priests, and other things, then the only way we can accept those things is to accept that the holy spirit is guiding the RCC into truth. History does not support it. And the claim that the holy spirit is guiding the RCC depends on the RCC’s interpretation of scripture, etc.

People who think there are Contradictions don’t undestand one or the other.

That’s a useless assertion – it’s that very premise that we’re essentially debating.

That is just it, though. The fullness of God’s Revelation is not limited to Scripture!

True, but how do you know it extends to the RCC, but not to the individual believer?

I agree that it must be compared to the Source. However, the Source is not scripture alone. When Catholics point to the Authority in scripture, it is another validation of what comes by way of Tradition. The two were never meant to be separated.

And outside of written material from the era, how do you actually know what the traditions were? How can you trust that you have an accurate understanding thereof without written record to support and prove your claims?

 

[bookgirl32]

Moreover, let’s consider that any verbal tradition supposedly passed from one generation to the next is inherently flawed, for the same reason that playing a game of “telephone” usually results in a different message being received by the last player than was given by the first. If we eliminate verbal communication as being reliable, the written record is much more important. And if that written record doesn’t contain reference to the papacy, confession to priests, and other things, then the only way we can accept those things is to accept that the holy spirit is guiding the RCC into truth. History does not support it. And the claim that the holy spirit is guiding the RCC depends on the RCC’s interpretation of scripture, etc

So if, by your argument, God would institute verbal tradition as part of his divinely inspired word, then why would He let it fall apart? That argument is just as dangerous to the Written Word as Tradition.

 

[Tim_in_MI]

So if, by your argument, God would institute verbal tradition as part of his divinely inspired word, then why would He let it fall apart? That argument is just as dangerous to the Written Word as Tradition.

And, by the way, this is how much of the Old Testament came to us - so where does that leave us? The “telephone game” as it has been described would have butchered 1000+ years of telling the stories starting with Genesis, would it not?

 

[PC_Master]

So if, by your argument, God would institute verbal tradition as part of his divinely inspired word, then why would He let it fall apart? That argument is just as dangerous to the Written Word as Tradition.

If God intended verbal tradition to be and remain valid throughout the ages, then I believe he could have (and would have) ensured its validity. However, it is my belief he did not wish to interfere with the free will of so many, and perhaps for this, or many other reasons (which I may or may not understand), God chose to do it another way.

As for the argument being just as dangerous to written documents as to verbal tradition…howso? With verbal tradition, you have something like this (borrowed from the Wikipedia page on the game “Chinese whispers” aka “Telephone”)…

The following is excerpted from the movie Johnny Dangerously:
Lil: Get this to Johnny on the grapevine: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the Savoy Theater tomorrow night. Got it?Polly: Got it.Polly: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the savoy theater pass it on.Prisoner: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.Prisoner: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s mother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.Prisoner: Vermin’s mother is going to kill Johnny tonight at the Savoy Theater. Pass it on.Prisoner: *[gibberish]*Prisoner: There’s a message on the grapevine, Johnny.Johnny: Yeah, what is it?Prisoner: Johnny and the Mothers are playin’ “Stompin’ At The Savoy” in Vermont tonight.Johnny: Vermin’s going to kill my brother at the Savoy Theater tonight?Prisoner: I didn’t say that.Johnny: No, but I know this grapevine.Now, how could a verbal problem like that be dangerous to written text? Yes, I understand that errors in copying texts can and do happen, but not to any significant extent with scripture. It’s one of the most well-verified textual works in history.

 

[guanophore]

You believe that, and yet you believe he interfered with that to protect and guide the RCC?

Of course not!

Please address my description of the error of your assumption, given above. You need to take the context of the “gates of hell” (aka “jaws of death” – I like that particular translation…it fits) and the location in which Christ was speaking into consideration to understand what he meant by saying “the gates of hell will not prevail against it”.

Well, can we agree that gates don’t move? Can we agree that people have to somehow locomote, and thereby pass through the gates? your response appears to rest on the assumption that there were NO Catholics that wanted to hear God at all, and that, instead of seeking His will and direction, they were all engaged in active rebellion against God at all times, or at least sufficiently enough to make it impossible for God to provide guidance.

To summarize – it means that paganism and satanic influence will not overcome the truth.

Is this your definition of the 'gates of hell"? if so, how is this different than not teaching error?

If, as you say, the NT is a reflection of the faith of the apostles (which I agree with), can we not consider it an accurate reflection?

Absolutely! What may not be accurate is people’s interpretation of it.

Moreover, let’s consider that any verbal tradition supposedly passed from one generation to the next is inherently flawed, for the same reason that playing a game of “telephone” usually results in a different message being received by the last player than was given by the first. If we eliminate verbal communication as being reliable, the written record is much more important.

If you make this assumption, then you have to throw out all of the Scripture. On the contrary, God trained His people in the oral transmission for centuries, and they were experts. Additionally, God is not playing a child’s game, and He is more than able to watch over His word to perform it.

And if that written record doesn’t contain reference to the papacy, confession to priests, and other things, then the only way we can accept those things is to accept that the holy spirit is guiding the RCC into truth. History does not support it. And the claim that the holy spirit is guiding the RCC depends on the RCC’s interpretation of scripture, etc.

Well, we see it differently!

That’s a useless assertion – it’s that very premise that we’re essentially debating.

It is only a useless assertion if the postulant is arrogant enough to believe that he cannot be wrong.

True, but how do you know it extends to the RCC, but not to the individual believer?

This is the Teaching of Jesus. He never promised He would make individuals infallib;e. Only the Church. We can enjoy the benefits of the gift, so long as we remain in union with the recipient of the gift.

And outside of written material from the era, how do you actually know what the traditions were? How can you trust that you have an accurate understanding thereof without written record to support and prove your claims?

We are still living them today, just as has been done for 2000 years. There are plenty of writings, not all of which I have read to date, but it seems to me that there is probably a written record of everything at this point.

We can be confident in the promise of Jesus, that He had empowered His apostles to teach all that He had commanded, and that He would enable them to pass on what they had learned. The infallibility of the Church is not based in the fallible people, but in the infallible Head, who is Christ.

 

[guanophore]

If God intended verbal tradition to be and remain valid throughout the ages, then I believe he could have (and would have) ensured its validity. However, it is my belief he did not wish to interfere with the free will of so many, and perhaps for this, or many other reasons (which I may or may not understand), God chose to do it another way.

You erroneously assume that the people of God did not WANT to remember his word! This is how He chose to do it, and He has done it.

As for the argument being just as dangerous to written documents as to verbal tradition…howso? With verbal tradition, you have something like this (borrowed from the Wikipedia page on the game “Chinese whispers” aka “Telephone”)…
Now, how could a verbal problem like that be dangerous to written text? Yes, I understand that errors in copying texts can and do happen, but not to any significant extent with scripture. It’s one of the most well-verified textual works in history.

It is dangerous because the whole of the scriptures, both new and OT are based completely in verbal tradition. If it is not valid, then it was not valid when it was written!

Your characterization of the preservation of God’s Holy Word as a child’s game is appalling.

There are some examples of verbal tradition in scripture, the geneaologies are some, and the sacred histories that are recited by Stephen and Paul at their trials. The people of God were required to commit these to memory, just as Jews do to this day. Have you never been to a bar Mistvah?

 

[utunumsint]

Okay, so, you’re saying that the apostles and their direct descendants had the understanding that confession to a priest is necessary, for example? Or perhaps they said that the text of the mass must be said at each gathering. Or, perhaps these individuals expressly disclaimed a symbolic or spiritual, but not physical, “Eucharist”? Were these teachings really the same back in those days? If you say they are, here’s the important part – how do you know they’re the same? Do you have written records that address these issues (probably not)? How else do you make such an assertion?

 

[utunumsint]

One more thought: At the council of Jerusalem, they would not have had access to most of the Gospels, Paul’s letters to the Galatians, Paul’s letters to the Romans, John’s Gospels, Revelations, Paul’s later pastoral letters, Hebrews, etc… If they needed a council to plumb the depths of the major issues dividing Jewish Christians from Gentil Christians, how must more so us, who have the content John’s Gospels, Paul’s letters, etc…?

God bless,
Ut

 

[davidv]

{snip}
Moreover, let’s consider that any verbal tradition supposedly passed from one generation to the next is inherently flawed, for the same reason that playing a game of “telephone” usually results in a different message being received by the last player than was given by the first. If we eliminate verbal communication as being reliable, the written record is much more important. And if that written record doesn’t contain reference to the papacy, confession to priests, and other things, then the only way we can accept those things is to accept that the holy spirit is guiding the RCC into truth. History does not support it. And the claim that the holy spirit is guiding the RCC depends on the RCC’s interpretation of scripture, etc.
{snip}

Since the oral tradition of the early church did not occur in the same manner as a game of telephone, how can errors demonstrated in the game be used to demonstrate the “inherently flawed” nature of the oral tradition? The teachings were presented multiple time to multiple people. This looks nothing like the the game of telephone where the message is delivered only once to each individual in sequence.

 

[davidv]

{snip}

True, but how do you know it extends to the RCC, but not to the individual believer?
{snip}

Because it is clearly demostratable that it is not true for individual believers.

 

[utunumsint]

Aside from the supposed successors of Peter, who were these individuals, and where do we see the apostles giving them the authority to develop doctrine?

1-who were these individuals?

I see them as the bishops and the presbyters.

2-where do we see the apostles giving them the authority to develop doctrine?

They were present at the Jerusalem council and among those who discussed the issues. Thus the results of the council are to some extent due to their deliberations and the delibrations of the Apostles. So they are included in this doctrinal development. I see no reason to doubt that they would continue this model.

Paul commended Timothy to hold fast to the things he’d taught, and advocated finding future replacement personnel for the ministry, but I don’t recall him passing on any sort of apostolic authority, nor have I seen any other documentation which claims witness to this.

OK. So lets see what developments occured after Paul’s death starting with Clement of Rome.

Chapter 1

For you did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who had the rule over you, and giving all fitting honour to the presbyters among you.

So here we see the church of Rome calling the church of the Corinthians to obey their presbyters.

Chapter 44

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.

They were appointed by the apostles. And they were called to appoint others after they die. It would be sinful to depose them without good reason.

Chapter 47

It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters.

More of the same. Individuals grouping together (e.g. one or two) cannot depose a presbyter.

Chapter 54

Let him declare, "If on my account sedition and disagreement and schisms have arisen, I will depart, I will go away whithersoever ye desire, and I will do whatever the majority commands; only let the flock of Christ live on terms of peace with the presbyters set over it.

Again, calls to obedience to the presbyter.
Chapter 57

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people.

A call to learn obedience. Again, it seems that the idea of individualistic searching for God apart from the church hierarchy is rejected. Trust the opinion of the bishop over your own opinion.

So in all of these quotes, we have a call to humble obedience to the bishop/presbyter, a witness to apostolic succession, a witness to their teaching authority based on their fulfilling their duties.

But further developments elaborating the idea of apostolic succession and the authority of the presbyter/ bishop were to come with Ignatius.

God bless,
Ut

 

[PC_Master]

Of course not!

Then how does the holy spirit prevent error if not by interfering with free will? It cannot at all be certain that every individual in leadership of the RCC will always be willing to listen to the holy spirit, and will not wish to abuse the claim of infallibility, etc.

Well, can we agree that gates don’t move?

Yes, but you obviously didn’t read my response – the “gates of hell” is not actually a reference to gates (or another form of entryway or doorway), but rather is a term simply representing all of paganism and satanic influence. Thus, thinking of them as actual gates in any sense is flawed.

Further, because they’re not actual gates, your comments regarding passing through gates are irrelevant.

your response appears to rest on the assumption that there were NO Catholics that wanted to hear God at all, and that, instead of seeking His will and direction, they were all engaged in active rebellion against God at all times, or at least sufficiently enough to make it impossible for God to provide guidance.

No – in fact, I assume there were many who were willing to hear God. However, I also assume that there were some who did not, and that a cohesive earthly leadership should only be assumed if it was guaranteed by God. However, to demonstrate that this happened, you need writing that conclusively demonstrates such – otherwise we’re left to interpretations of simple writings, thereby making them into more complex things.

In such instances, I think it’s not only possible that we’re wrong, but likely, especially since Christ frequently spoke against earthly leadership and power.

Is this your definition of the 'gates of hell"? if so, how is this different than not teaching error?

First, we obviously have differing interpretations of the meaning of “church”. You view it as the RCC. I view it as simply the collection of all believers in Christ, as a group.

Second, we have to define what “prevail against” means. Another way to translate the Greek is “to overcome”. Looking at the definitions of those words, we see that the meaning is that the “gates of hell” will not “overcome or destroy” the “church”.

So, “satanic influence and paganism will not destroy the church”, and indeed it has not, even if the RCC be false and my definition of church be true.

Absolutely! What may not be accurate is people’s interpretation of it.

I’m glad we agree on that.

If you make this assumption, then you have to throw out all of the Scripture.

Why?

Well, we see it differently!

Yes, but you’re the affirmative claimant (positing that those things are found in scripture), so it would seem that you should be providing evidence for that claim.

It is only a useless assertion if the postulant is arrogant enough to believe that he cannot be wrong.

No – it’s useless in that it’s assuming what is yet to be proven.

This is the Teaching of Jesus. He never promised He would make individuals infallib;e. Only the Church. We can enjoy the benefits of the gift, so long as we remain in union with the recipient of the gift.

Where did he say “and the church shall be without error”?

We are still living them today, just as has been done for 2000 years.

But how do you know that they’re the same traditions? What external source do you verify this with? You say it’s the same, and that it has been done from one generation to the next for 2000 years – but you can’t verify it at all, so how do you know?

There are plenty of writings, not all of which I have read to date, but it seems to me that there is probably a written record of everything at this point.

Well, the burden of proof would seem to be on you to substantiate that claim.

We can be confident in the promise of Jesus, that He had empowered His apostles to teach all that He had commanded, and that He would enable them to pass on what they had learned.

I would generally agree with this – why would he command them to do something unless he believed they were at least capable of it? However, I take the “great commission” as an instruction to more than just the apostles.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

The infallibility of the Church is not based in the fallible people, but in the infallible Head, who is Christ.

I understand the idea, but it matters not unless Christ actually intended to create an infallible church.

You erroneously assume that the people of God did not WANT to remember his word!

No – I simply assume that they were not capable thereof, at least not completely.

It is dangerous because the whole of the scriptures, both new and OT are based completely in verbal tradition. If it is not valid, then it was not valid when it was written!

The verbal tradition of those who walked and talked with Christ, or those who came shortly after is infinitely better than verbal tradition passed down for dozens of generations.

Your characterization of the preservation of God’s Holy Word as a child’s game is appalling.

It’s an accurate example of what happens to verbal tradition when it is repeated. Please address it, rather than simply insulting it as appalling.

I think for these it is sufficient to understand that development does occur, therefore what was implicit in earlier understandings is made explicit in later understanding, usually through councils, as in the Council of Jerusalem.

Assuming all of the above is true, you also have to prove:

1. That these developments are necessary to be formalized – specifically, you’re saying the holy spirit can’t simply reveal these truths to seeking believers, thus providing the truth without a council or other legislative body.
2. You would have to demonstrate not only that the concept of development and councils are valid, but that the councils you recognize are themselves valid. How would you do this?
3. You have to prove that these teachings are necessary to be taught for us to have valid faith, in spite of the fact that they were not explicitly taught to earlier generations of believers.
4. You have to prove that these developments actually were implicitly understood by previous generations of believers, without assuming this to be true.

The floor’s open. I await your response on these vital points.

So to accept developments, you have to be able to accept:

1. 
   *]An authorizing body that is capable of determining which doctrinal developments are in line with the deposit of truth handed down by the apostles and in line with tradition.

1. 
   No, you don’t. You have to have some means of receiving true developments, but that doesn’t necessarily require a body of persons to authorize such.
   

   So to answer your question, the scriptures is unclear about how confession was undertaken. The letter of Jame talks about confession to each other, so the possible development here is a refined understanding of who can offer confessions.

   What’s so unclear? Please note the emphasized portions below:James 5:14-16 Amplified
   14. Is anyone among you sick? He should call in the church elders (the spiritual guides). And they should pray over him, anointing him with oil in the Lord’s name.
   15. And the prayer [that is] of faith will save him who is sick, and the Lord will restore him; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
   16. Confess to one another therefore your faults (your slips, your false steps, your offenses, your sins) and pray [also] for one another, that you may be healed and restored [to a spiritual tone of mind and heart]. The earnest (heartfelt, continued) prayer of a righteous man makes tremendous power available [dynamic in its working].
   
   What’s left to develop? This says “confess to one another”. It speaks of elders (plural). It speaks of the prayers of a righteous man (not necessarily a priest) being of benefit. What it doesn’t say is anything specifically about a priest. It also doesn’t say that the priest (acting in the place of Christ) will pardon the sins…it says God will pardon the sins.
   
   There’s no indication of confession to a priest in there…at all.
   

   The Gospel of John sees Jesus giving authority to the apostles to confess sins, so it may be that even from the letter of James to the Gospel of John, there was a refinement in understanding.

   Refined how? The only possible refinement I can see would require that the epistle of James be false in its statement.
   
   Perhaps you could explain this development of understanding to me, and exactly how both teachings are true (James and the modern RCC teaching) without contradicting one another.
   

   The other point you make is about finding an express description on liturgical structure. You don’t find this explicitly outlined in the scriptures, but you do get hints.

   Which can just as easily fit into a non-liturgical framework. I’d say such hints, as you call them, do not lean either way.
   
   Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

I’d say the Didache provides more concrete descriptions of liturgical rite. So does Justin.

Got some specific portions of text in mind?

But again, you have to see a development of understanding. Of perhaps what was understood from the beginning only gets written down later on. These developments are all found within tradition.

If it was understood from the beginning, but not written down, what makes you so certain that the later generations actually understood it in the same way?

…make clear doctrinal recomendations. The wording of the intro is particularly interesting Act 15:28 'It **is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us **not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities…"

Actually, you’re butchering it slightly – it should be “it seemed good to the holy spirit and to us”, rather than “it is the decision…”. Anyway, the overall context does warrant a rendering of a decision – they were expressly consulted on this issue, to give their opinion on it. If that was the case, then it makes entirely good sense for them to render a “decision”. It’s not as if they were picking up this issue because they’d heard of problems – they were directly consulted.

It seems clear to me that they felt themselves authorized to speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit and on behalf of themselves, the us in question. It is that us that I would call the magisterium.

And where’s the “if any disagree with this, let him be anathema”? I see no claim of infallibility or even of total church rulership made in Acts 15 (or anywhere else in scripture for that matter).

This was an opinion rendered by a group with vast spiritual maturity in response to being consulted by Paul (and those who sent him) on the specific subject. I can’t help but think, if Paul were going to get an authoritative ruling from the leadership of the church, and understood the concept of church magisterium, that Luke would have written Acts 15:2 somewhat like this…

“And when Paul and Barnabas had no small disagreement and discussion with them, it was decided that Paul and Barnabas and some of the others of their number should go up to the head church in Jerusalem and request God’s truth from the apostles (in union with Peter) and the elders about this matter, so that the truth might be known and the disagreement settled.”

But instead we see that Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to ask the apostles and elders about this matter. It doesn’t say they held authority over the church.

…IMO, there can be no belief or unity of belief without something to believe in (doctrines).

I guess I’m not understanding what you mean here – doctrines are a belief that is taught, not what the target of the belief is. Thus, you don’t believe “in” doctrines.

Paul certainly believed that the apostles were following the Holy Spirit, but there was more to it than that. There were the ones who were commisioned by Christ to go to all nations and teach them all things. Thus they had a special authority, not only a spiritual maturity.

What makes you assume they had special authority? Where was this mentioned?

I agree that this is the primary function of the Holy Spirit. But how does the Holy Spirit work?

I don’t understand what the purpose of this question is – what’s the bearing on the discussion? Does the means of the revelation of the holy spirit have any bearing on the target of that revelation (church leaders vs individual believer)?

We approach the scriptures, the councils, and the teachings of the Church Fathers in the same way. And I will humbly admite that I could be wrong. We all could be wrong about everything. There may be no God at all. I believe that to be sane, one must at least admit the possibility that we could be wrong.

Admitting the possibility is all I asked. Now, I would ask – how is it that you came to the conclusions you did, without anything clear in writing to support many of the beliefs you hold? How can you assert that the RCC has the authority to develop doctrine, when we don’t even see such authority granted in scripture? More importantly, where do we see the council of Jerusalem claiming itself to be infallible?

Since the oral tradition of the early church did not occur in the same manner as a game of telephone, how can errors demonstrated in the game be used to demonstrate the “inherently flawed” nature of the oral tradition? The teachings were presented multiple time to multiple people. This looks nothing like the the game of telephone where the message is delivered only once to each individual in sequence.

So, if you express a doctrinal concept to me over time, repeatedly, I’m supposed to remember it better than someone who receives a simple sentence and has to repeat it 10 seconds later? That seems rather crazy to me.

Moreover, there are obviously many who don’t remember and pass on these verbal teachings – in short, we’re left with no verifiable means of determining that any given generation held certain beliefs. The only thing we’ve got is writings. We can say for certain what the RCC officially taught in 1995 on X topic to some extent, because it’s written down. However, if there’s nothing written on a topic in 200AD, how do you have any idea what they believed?

Because it is clearly demostratable that it is not true for individual believers.

Howso? And even if that were the case, how does it necessarily show that it is true for the RCC?

 

[bookgirl32]

If God intended verbal tradition to be and remain valid throughout the ages, then I believe he could have (and would have) ensured its validity. However, it is my belief he did not wish to interfere with the free will of so many, and perhaps for this, or many other reasons (which I may or may not understand), God chose to do it another way.

As for the argument being just as dangerous to written documents as to verbal tradition…howso? With verbal tradition, you have something like this (borrowed from the Wikipedia page on the game “Chinese whispers” aka “Telephone”)…

The following is excerpted from the movie Johnny Dangerously:
Lil: Get this to Johnny on the grapevine: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the Savoy Theater tomorrow night. Got it?Polly: Got it.Polly: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the savoy theater pass it on.Prisoner: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s brother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.Prisoner: Vermin is going to kill Johnny’s mother at the Savoy Theater tonight. Pass it on.Prisoner: Vermin’s mother is going to kill Johnny tonight at the Savoy Theater. Pass it on.Prisoner: *[gibberish]*Prisoner: There’s a message on the grapevine, Johnny.Johnny: Yeah, what is it?Prisoner: Johnny and the Mothers are playin’ “Stompin’ At The Savoy” in Vermont tonight.Johnny: Vermin’s going to kill my brother at the Savoy Theater tonight?Prisoner: I didn’t say that.Johnny: No, but I know this grapevine.Now, how could a verbal problem like that be dangerous to written text? Yes, I understand that errors in copying texts can and do happen, but not to any significant extent with scripture. It’s one of the most well-verified textual works in history.

Yes, errors in copying texts can happen just as easily as in the verbal tradition. I honestly don’t know what the oldest copy of the bible is (??), but I know it’s a copy, and not the original. How many times could any of the scribes doing the copying change the words? Yes, the Bible is one of the most well-verified textual works in history, by MEN. You’re trusting men to tell you that it’s correct then, huh?