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

[bookgirl32]

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?

And PC, answer this one please, it’s a much better argument than mine!

 

[utunumsint]

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?

Leave aside the doctrinal issues for a moment and just focus on the historical evidence. Include Clement or Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna, and Ireneneus of Lyons into the historical data pool.

Now when I converted back to Catholicism, this is what I did. Based on the developments of doctrine which I saw in *historical * continuity with the teaching of the disciples, I realised there was also a doctrinal continuity as well. If the developments over the first hundred years of church history were legitimate, then maybe the developments of later years were also legitimate. The more I researched, the more I became convinced that this was so.

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?

When one accepts that the Bible is the word of God, then one has to see these texts as infallible. It is the same way for the Catholic church. When one sees that the concils of the Catholic church are the word of God, then one has to see them as infallible. But you have to accept it first as the word of God before you can claim it is infallible. In both cases this is a mystery of faith.

I’m not ignoring the rest of your post. I’ll get to it when I have some time.

God bless,
Ut

 

[PC_Master]

Yes, errors in copying texts can happen just as easily as in the verbal tradition.

Really? So you’re saying copyists can’t copy text and more proficiently than people can pass along verbal messages? I find this utterly ridiculous – so much so that there’s nothing else I will say on the matter.

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?

The multitude of copies that exist which agree with each over in over 99% of the contents aren’t enough to verify that the original text has persevered?

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?

Logic suggests that if there were such errors as you claim could happen, we wouldn’t have anywhere nearly as many agreeing texts as we do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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…”.

" Acts 15: 28:

'It is the decision of the **holy Spirit and of us **not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, NAB

The multitude of copies that exist which agree with each over in over 99% of the contents aren’t enough to verify that the original text has persevered?

Logic suggests that if there were such errors as you claim could happen, we wouldn’t have anywhere nearly as many agreeing texts as we do.

 

[pneuma07]

Newman wrote: *Principles require a very various application according as persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society *

This only admits disunity of practice and thus doctrine.

 

[bookgirl32]

Really? So you’re saying copyists can’t copy text and more proficiently than people can pass along verbal messages? I find this utterly ridiculous – so much so that there’s nothing else I will say on the matter.

I’d say this is your opinion and is a ridiculous argument. Copying of text COULD’VE been subject to someone’s misunderstanding, typos, willful changes to the text with no authority to make them, etc. My point is, you believe that this did not happen b/c God protected the scriptures from being corrupted. If He did this, why could He not protect verbal communication as well? Or do you simply trust the scriptures because they were written down?

The multitude of copies that exist which agree with each over in over 99% of the contents aren’t enough to verify that the original text has persevered?

You’re totally missing my point here. I’m not trying to argue the validity of the Bible.

Logic suggests that if there were such errors as you claim could happen, we wouldn’t have anywhere nearly as many agreeing texts as we do.

Good thing God requires faith from us, not logic. I credit the “agreeing texts” to God’s protection, not to us!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Copying of text COULD’VE been subject to someone’s misunderstanding, typos, willful changes to the text with no authority to make them, etc. My point is, you believe that this did not happen b/c God protected the scriptures from being corrupted. If He did this, why could He not protect verbal communication as well? Or do you simply trust the scriptures because they were written down?

For thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory, now and forever.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’d say this is your opinion and is a ridiculous argument. Copying of text COULD’VE been subject to someone’s misunderstanding, typos, willful changes to the text with no authority to make them, etc. My point is, you believe that this did not happen b/c God protected the scriptures from being corrupted. If He did this, why could He not protect verbal communication as well? Or do you simply trust the scriptures because they were written down?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02141a.htm:

During the progress of the Reformation a number of English versions appeared, Of these the most famous were Tyndale’s Bible (1525); Coverdale’s Bible (1535); Matthews’ Bible (1537); Cromwell’s, or the “Great Bible” (1539), the second and subsequent editions of which were known as Cranmer’s Bible; the Geneva Bible (1557-60); and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). That there was much good and patient work in them, none will deny; **but they were marred by the perversion of many passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism. **

 

[bookgirl32]

qui_est_ce:

 

[pneuma07]

What point were you trying to make here?

as they do, and moreover, there wouldn’t be nearly as much disagreement in belief as there currently is.
I am glad this at least on the surface sounds reasonable.
I never saw a succesfull attempt to claim contradictions in the two millennia of teachings. You saw many.
As for “disagreement in belief”: is Scripture from God ? How is it that we disagree about understanding it, then ? Does that mean Scripture is useless, in your vision ?

Sure could – and those things also surely would have been written down if God meant for such to be codified.

Since the written explanation of a written text could need written explanation, and go like that ad infinitum, we have to postulate non-written explanations somewhere.

Actually, I check it against other scripture and against the revelation of the holy spirit, after doing my best to make myself open to God’s will. I’m not the master of revelation – God is. I just hope to have a reasonably competent understanding of what is revealed.

using Scripture to determine Scripture becomes circular ( you have to begin from a book, after all). You can escape circularity with extra-scriptural knowledge only.
In your claims you get that directly from above.
This way, you are not only recipient of ways to interpret Revelation, you are nothing less than recipient of a new extra-scriptural Revelation in itself ( if we have to assume the first Revelation was completely written down).

The way you speak, it seems clear that you reject the notion that the holy spirit can reveal things to the individual believer – thus you assume that anyone who claims divine revelation is in fact self-deceptive, believing whatever it is they choose to believe, and that God has no role in it. This seems a flawed notion.

I can contemplate that as a possibility.
You can give us recognizable validations of your claims to give substance to this theoretical openness.

Hmm – let me ask directly. Putting aside the claims of the RCC momentarily, and whether God did or did not do things in a certain way – would you agree that God could

have chosen to reveal truth directly to the individual? Could he have protected the truth in this way throughout history, preventing heresy from completely overtaking the church, if he had chosen to do so? See above.

Certainly not as the RCC teaches

it – priests and bishops appointed by a hierarchy. I understand this is somehow what matters most here: "“certainly not as the RCC teaches.” Anything else can be considered.
Now, those bishops and priests/persbyters of the sub-apostolic church were a hierarchy. Were they not ? And they were appointed by bishops, or by whom ?

And where in all of those quotes you posted did it speak of literal

sacrifices? Did it specify what the sacrifices were, or how exactly the sacrifice was to be done?
Do you believe pure sacrifices are presented by Christians everywhere ? Do you present sacrifices in the church you attend (if any) ?

How can that be? You seemingly disagree with the concept that the holy spirit can reveal truth to individual believers. If not for that purpose, what does the holy spirit do?

What about starting reading *Dominum et Vivicantem * by John Paul II ?

Nope – but scripture does mention that Christ was God incarnate (“the word was God…and the word became flesh”, “if you have seen me [Christ], you’ve seen the father in heaven”). Scripture is also very clear that the holy spirit has no words of its own to speak, but instead speaks what is given it by the father. These, it would seem, are the necessary beliefs. Whether we call any of it “trinity” is inconsequential. Aside from the formality of agreeing with the doctrine, what difference does the official concept of the trinity actually make? If I hold to scripture, but was never given any doctrines about the trinity, what would I be lacking in my faith?

Doctrine ( that ugly word ) is not mainly about terminology. If you have the concept, I’d say you have the doctrine.

This is true, and yet the church is clearly, according to scripture, comprised of all who hold belief in Christ. Never, anywhere, does it refer to an official organization, such as “the Church”.

You see, these terms are just codifications of what’s found in scripture – nothing more. Thus, as an official teaching they’re only semantical. The important belief component of these things are clearly taught in scripture itself.

Clearly ?? We were dealing with the “invisible” church in December. I cannot remember that it was clear then.

Today’s a good day.

Give me, please, then, your interpretation of the Great Commission in Matthew.

[/QUOTE]

 

[utunumsint]

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

 

[PC_Master]

Pardon ?

To reshape something is to change it, which means there are differences, and thus disunity. The same practice, when practiced differently in different rites, is in fact not the same, however similar it may be. The same teaching, when understood differently by different people in different cultures in different times, is not to be said to have the same understanding.

We know you are not precisely a supporter ( does Paul speak about teachers in the Church ? ) of formalized teaching
( trust no man !), but this putting it against understanding does not seem to make much sense: you have first to understand in order to teach.

True, but does the fact that you teach implicitly mean that you have a valid understanding?

Since a major charge is discontinuity, if you can see continuty in development, that would qualify as a good answer to that, wouldn’t it ?

Continuity? When did we switch to that? Even so – continuity, like unity, does not validate the teachings believed in, nor does even the belief in the teachings.

The institution of episcopacy by the disciples of the Apostles and the immediate disciples of the former, is very intriguing, IMHO. The teaching of the Apostles must have been such, that the existence of a special college within the Church, instituted by the Lord, was not perceived as a tool for the first generation only, but as a lasting one.

Must have been? How do you demonstrate that without making assumptions based on RCC teaching?

Developments are anwers to the situations the Church experiences.

In general, I agree, especially in that that’s how the RCC sees its claimed development. What I don’t agree with however is that the RCC has been protected by God to accurately determine these answers. Where you see a bunch of Protestants, each claiming to have the truth as revealed by God, all disagreeing with one another, I see the RCC as one more in that bunch. Why should I believe that it has the truth and is authorized to respond to heresy with full authority of God?

If you mean “let us mentally erase any post-apostolic development and imagine we have a Church as in about 100 AD”. ( without pretending we know exactly what that Church was like). If such is the mental experiment , we could say that there would be everything in that Church to answer the XXI century reality, and that those answers would represent a very accelerated development.

What? I totally don’t understand what you’re getting at here.

You essentially see all doctrinal developments as responses to various heresies and cultural changes. If, however, as stated before, the faith of the apostles, as found in scripture, contains all that is necessary to cause all the later developments, why does that require the involvement of a church body? Why is the revelation and understanding of these truths to and by the individual believer insufficient?

OK. To claim you can see the history of papacy as an “unsettling discontinuity” you have essentially to show the absence of the petrine principle. You have had several long threads, and can start a new one.

The absense of? If by that you mean – show that there is no evidence that can be construed to support the concept – you are quite incorrect. Something need not be assumed unless there is good reason to do so. You’re essentially taking the position that we must assume the papacy to be true unless it can be explicitly disproven. But as we’ve covered – heresies are rarely addressed until after they come into being. Thus, if the papacy as such didn’t exist in the first century AD, there should be no expectation to find anti-papal texts.

Instead, I take the position that the papacy must be proven to a decent degree of certainty, addressing the most obvious questions of how and where we can see clearly papal actions in scripture and later sources. Something such as Acts 15, which shows Peter not acting in an un-papal way, is not sufficient for this, for there’s nothing in the text that is explicitly papal…or even explicitly hierarchal in the sense of leadership over the whole church.

About apostolic succession we saw the divine institution of a special college was not understood as for one generation only by those who were taught by the Apostles themselves.

Where did “we” see this? I saw a succession of ministry, but never of a special office, either for Peter, nor any other apostle, including Paul.

Your argument could be stretched to disqualify any teaching at all. Or better any message. No teaching is understood in the same way by everybody.

Agreed – but I haven’t stretched it in such a way – it remains quite reasonable.

What good is Scripture if there is mass disagreement in belief ?

If the purpose of scripture is to create complete unity of belief, and it is expected to do so, then yes, scripture is a failure – but I don’t believe that was ever its intended purpose. God knew there would be those who would reject it, and had no desire to interfere in free will. He also had no desire to explicitly codify everything.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Why ?

Claiming to respect my personal experience of revelation from the holy spirit seems false when considering that you seem to be arguing that the holy spirit does not in fact reveal the truth as I believe. (If it doesn’t happen, then it couldn’t have happened to believe, and you’re implicitly stating that I’m incorrect – that’s not respect.)

So, in other words, you receive the same teaching and get different beliefs. Don’t you ? Is then your “direct communication” way “useless” ?

Yes, that’s essentially correct – however the reason is the imperfections of the human being receiving the teaching, not a flaw in the teaching itself. It’s a useful method if and when we’re willing and able to receive. If we reject it, just like any other teaching method, it is pretty useless.

How do you settle who is right ?

Between me and another believer, in an audible and final manner? There is no earthly source – but why does there need to be? The unity will only come when we are willing for it to be, regardless of the teaching source. What additional benefit then, does the RCC provide?

Or is it your claim that willing and able individuals will still receive differing truths from the holy spirit? This seems to be what you’re driving at, without saying it.

I know we’re pitifully downstream. But as downstream as we humbly accept to be, I will repeat we can settle disputes.

Why does that matter if the teachings aren’t the right ones? Also, you can only settle disputes when all parties are willing for that to happen – but the holy spirit can handle that too.

I’d say this is your opinion and is a ridiculous argument. Copying of text COULD’VE been subject to someone’s misunderstanding, typos, willful changes to the text with no authority to make them, etc.

Correct – it could. But it’s degrees of magnitude less likely than the likelihood of corrupting audible communications. Yes, I’ve made typos in my day, changed words around when transposing text to PC…but not nearly as often as the number of times I’ve misspoken something audibly.

My point is, you believe that this did not happen b/c God protected the scriptures from being corrupted.

Yes.

If He did this, why could He not protect verbal communication as well?

Nothing is beyond the power of God. I 100% believe that, had he chosen to do so, he could have preserved his teaching via oral tradition. I just don’t believe that he chose that means of preserving the truth. This isn’t a question of whether or not the claims of the RCC are possible. It’s whether the claims are true.

Or do you simply trust the scriptures because they were written down?

Aside from the protection of God, I do put more trust in the accuracy of written words than of spoken ones. Books weren’t simply and easily created, nor was their copying something done by the uneducated and unskilled. It was serious work, even in early Christianity.

You’re totally missing my point here. I’m not trying to argue the validity of the Bible.

No – you’re trying to make it sound as though it’s just as likely for the Bible to have been corrupted as it is for verbal tradition to have been corrupted, and this is simply untrue.

Good thing God requires faith from us, not logic.

Faith and logic go hand in hand. God created the whole of the universe in a logical way. We see it all the time, from the cosmos down to the intricacies of the human body, the most incredibly designed system I’ve seen.

I credit the “agreeing texts” to God’s protection, not to us!

As do I. The many agreeing texts and incredibly high degree of cohesion is evidence of God’s work. However, I don’t see such evidence in the verbal (now written) tradition of the RCC.

Actually I let the texts speak by themselves. Read them several times, in different moments, let them flow into yourself.

As I believe I do – and yet we each come to different conclusions. This only goes to demonstrate my point – our ability and willingness to receive the truth is what limits its communication to us.

I am glad this at least on the surface sounds reasonable. I never saw a succesfull attempt to claim contradictions in the two millennia of teachings. You saw many.

Obviously neither of us is completely unbiased, but you seem to approach this from the “RCC teachings are true and don’t contradict themselves” perspective, with that claim as a premise, rather than a result of analyzing all the teaching. You start by assuming the conclusion, assuming there would be an explicit contradiction to the teachings of the RCC if they were wrong. But why would there be an explicit contradiction before the teaching existed?

As for “disagreement in belief”: is Scripture from God ? How is it that we disagree about understanding it, then ? Does that mean Scripture is useless, in your vision ?

Yes, scripture is from God. We disagree about understanding it because we are imperfect.

Since the written explanation of a written text could need written explanation, and go like that ad infinitum, we have to postulate non-written explanations somewhere.

I’m willing to accept non-written explanations somewhere. That doesn’t necessarily mean from the RCC, however – the RCC would have to demonstrate its validity, which it cannot do without appealing to its own interpretations of scripture that differ from what I would consider to be a plain and obvious understanding of scripture.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

You can escape circularity with extra-scriptural knowledge only…In your claims you get that directly from above.

Right.

This way, you are not only recipient of ways to interpret Revelation, you are nothing less than recipient of a new extra-scriptural Revelation in itself ( if we have to assume the first Revelation was completely written down).

Extra-scriptural…I suppose you could call it that, though I prefer to think of it only as explanation of God’s truth, as contained in scripture. It’s not unlike the interpretation the RCC does to the ECFs and scripture and then explains in the CCC and other documents. The only difference is the source.

I guess that’s what it’s coming down to – why is there reason to believe God cannot or will not reveal the truth directly to me as I’m open and willing (truly willing) to receive it? Why is there reason to believe that the RCC can and does receive that revelation and has the ability to articulate it without error? Neither method creates total unity, doctrinally or in belief. Yet, in both cases (in theory), those who are truly wanting to know the truth can and will find it, and their questions will be answered by an authoritative source.

I can contemplate that as a possibility…You can give us recognizable validations of your claims to give substance to this theoretical openness.

First, what kind of “recognizable validations” are you speaking of? What is it you’re wanting to see that could convince you of the validity of my claims?

Second, you should realize that I’m imperfect, and thus any ability to disclose such things, or to disclose them accurately, wouldn’t necessarily imply failure in terms of my claimed means of revelation.

I understand this is somehow what matters most here: "“certainly not as the RCC teaches.” Anything else can be considered.

No – anything (including what the RCC teaches) can be, and is by me, considered. However when something seems at odds with more authoritative sources (such as scripture), you have to draw the line.

Now, those bishops and priests/persbyters of the sub-apostolic church were a hierarchy. Were they not ?

Of sorts, perhaps, but there’s no indication that either Jerusalem or Rome was considered the head church, or that there was a pope, or pope-esque leader.

And they were appointed by bishops, or by whom ?

The way I like to describe it is that, like the apostles, they were appointed by God. Their gifts for teaching, leadership, etc, just as all gifts, are given by God, regardless of man’s actions. That men may have recognized these traits in individuals, and put them in positions of leadership over congregations doesn’t indicate that there was a governing body as such.

Do you believe pure sacrifices are presented by Christians everywhere ? Do you present sacrifices in the church you attend (if any) ?

Woah there – you didn’t answer my question. You quoted a bunch of stuff about sacrifices – as before, I want to know – how do you know these are literal scrifices? How do you know what they were, and how they were to be presented?

What about starting reading *Dominum et Vivicantem * by John Paul II ?

If it’s not very long, I’d be happy to – got a link?

Doctrine ( that ugly word ) is not mainly about terminology. If you have the concept, I’d say you have the doctrine.

But had I never considered the concept of trinity, persay, would it matter? Scripture shows that Christ is one with God. Scripture shows that all from the holy spirit comes from God. What else in trinitarian doctrine is there that’s not contained therein? The important things are all in scripture. I have no need to believe in “the trinity” persay, because scripture is clear as necessary on the relationship of Christ to God, and the holy spirit to God.

Clearly ?? We were dealing with the “invisible” church in December. I cannot remember that it was clear then.

Perhaps you would show me where there’s any clear indication that it’s an earthly organization intended to have a hierarchy and such?

Give me, please, then, your interpretation of the Great Commission in Matthew.

In relation to what? The apostles? The average Christian? “The church” as an organization? Just a general interpretation?

I really don’t think the Judaizer debate could have been solved without the Jerusalem council because this issue was creating problems for every church.

It was causing problems at Antioch. Where does scripture say “every church”? Additionally, what makes you think the holy spirit was impotent, unable to reveal the truth to those who wished to have it? After all, the elders in Jerusalem claimed to have received that truth from that source…or are we back to claiming the holy spirit cannot, or does not, reveal the truth to individual believers?

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Without this council, this question could still be debated today, but because we have an official pronouncement from the apostles and those presbyters present at the council, the matter is closed. No Catholic or Protestant debates these issues.

It’s an interesting point. I’ll be thinking about it.

But because protestant question every other council after the Jerusalem council, we can still have debates over arianism, theotokos, and x, y, and z.

True – but the reason for the questioning of those councils is the questioning of the validity of them – it’s not a matter of what they resolved – it’s a matter of whether they had a right and/or guaranteed accuracy in solving the questions put before them.

My point is, it is precisely because of the legislative body at the council of Jerusalem and the fact that both Catholics and Protestants agree that it is authoritative, that we do not argue about Mosaic Law.

Actually, I know a number of individuals, RC and Protestant, who disagree with the “general” view on this.

The concept of development is present within the canon of the New Testament. The council of Jerusalem is evidence of this. I see no reason to believe that development would suddenly stop. Can you provide reasons for this belief of yours?

I don’t question the development – I question the consideration of this as infallible. Further, I consider questionable the supposed later development, since that development contradicts scripture.

As for the validity of the councils, for that you need an authorizing body. A hierarchy.

Yes, and since I don’t see one in early church history, I have further reason to question such councils. The validity of the council of Jerusalem came in regards to Antioch considering Jerusalem to be of knowledge and understanding and spiritual maturity. Thus, Antioch valued Jerusalem’s advice on the issue. Individuals can be spiritually mature, and be correct about many things, and still not be infallible. Lack of failure in a set of instances doesn’t mean that they’re unable to fail.

Well hold on a minute here. Your faith can still be valid but imperfect.

Okay. So, since there will presumably be many developments and clarifications of doctrine in the future of the RCC (would you not agree?), unless we find a believer who agrees with all of those future developments, it can be safely said that every Christian on the planet has an imperfect faith. I agree with that concept – we are imperfect, and our faith thus is as well. No problem here.

Since we all have imperfect faiths, I fail to see where understanding and believing any of the later developments from the RCC is necessary faith. The apostles had imperfect faith, and yet we can all reasonably conclude them to be in heaven when we get there. I’m fine with that. So why shouldn’t I just ignore RCC teaching and follow the faith of the apostles, as best as I’m able?

Why is confession to a priest necessary? Why must I explicitly hold to papal infallibility and primacy? There’s no indications that the apostles did.

The Catholic church teaches that protestants have elements of the truth, and are able to acheive salvation if such protestants display invincible ignorance

So I’ve heard.

Anyway, to continue, was it necessary for Stephen, the first martyr, to know what was decided at the Jerusalem council for his salvation? Not really. Did his faith contradict the Jerusalem council? I don’t think so, because I believe he truly, although implicitly, knew that salvation was from Christ, not from his observance of Sabaths, purification rites, Mosaic law, etc… Was he even conscious of this doctrine though? Was it an important enough issue for him to have any concern about? Probably not. He probably never even questioned it as it was so much a part of his life.

And so, if I never concerned myself with that issue, would it hamper my faith? I don’t think so.

More interestingly, however, we see scripture clearly affirm what does bring salvation. Christ’s own words demonstrate it, so that there isn’t question – you don’t have to extrapolate any “does X cause my salvation” because Christ clearly and cleanly explained it. He who believes shall be saved.

We must assume that Stephen implicitly believed what was decided at the Jerusalem council.

No – we may assume that he would, if presented with the issue, come to the same decision on his own as they did, but this is because he clearly had the right belief of what did cause his salvation – not because he’d ever considered the Mosaic law issues presented at Jerusalem.

We must assume that James, who died before John’s Gospel was written believed that Jesus was the Word, who in the beginning was with God and was God, even though we have no evidence to indicate that he did in fact hold this belief. Is it still an assumption? Yes, but it is a logical assumption based on good reasons.

Hmm, I know it’s off-topic, but what do you believe is meant by “the word”.

I hope it helps.

Not so much as I’d have hoped, but I do appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Yes it does. Otherwise there is no means to have a common understanding.

Except, of course, to receive it from the ultimate source – God.

 

[bookgirl32]

Nothing is beyond the power of God. I 100% believe that, had he chosen to do so, he could have preserved his teaching via oral tradition. I just don’t believe that he chose that means of preserving the truth. This isn’t a question of whether or not the claims of the RCC are possible. It’s whether the claims are true.

Then my question is:

What’s you’re basis for believing it’s not true, just b/c you don’t? Scripture never says it’s not true.

 

[Harmony1988]

No matter what angle I try to come to the Catholic Church from, I run into a wall - or should I say - I come back to the same place b/c I’m running around in circles.

It can’t be proven. But then again, neither can God’s existence be proven. You can show me what you think is more probable, and I can show you conflicting things that I think are more probable, but neither of us can prove anything at all and we all have to rely on our own, flawed judgement.

That’s a big assumption that 2000 years of Catholic theology can’t prove you wrong, or that you can always show ‘conflicting things’ very naive.

That perhaps answers your question on your angle in coming back to the Church, your naivety, overthinking a situation has also known to cause problems.

Intrinsically, what the Church teaches is faith, sure there are plenty of doctrines and philosophical proofs, but that’s not the central message, nor should it be.

I know this is like 5 months late, but this is the first time I’m seeing this thread.

 

[utunumsint]

It was causing problems at Antioch. Where does scripture say “every church”? Additionally, what makes you think the holy spirit was impotent, unable to reveal the truth to those who wished to have it? After all, the elders in Jerusalem claimed to have received that truth from that source…or are we back to claiming the holy spirit cannot, or does not, reveal the truth to individual believers?

 

[utunumsint]

Since we all have imperfect faiths, I fail to see where understanding and believing any of the later developments from the RCC is necessary faith. The apostles had imperfect faith, and yet we can all reasonably conclude them to be in heaven when we get there. I’m fine with that. So why shouldn’t I just ignore RCC teaching and follow the faith of the apostles, as best as I’m able?

I do not believe the Apostles had imperfect faith. They had implicit understanding of the faith which encompasses all future developments. The church guarantees that were are in line with apostolic witness.

And so, if I never concerned myself with that issue, would it hamper my faith? I don’t think so.

Yes. I believe it could. If you feel into the Arian heresy, the implications of this error could be devestating to your faith. And the same goes for every other council. If you accept the protestant version of the truth, you are left without any shepherds to guide you.

More interestingly, however, we see scripture clearly affirm what does bring salvation. Christ’s own words demonstrate it, so that there isn’t question – you don’t have to extrapolate any “does X cause my salvation” because Christ clearly and cleanly explained it. He who believes shall be saved.

Yes, but if what you believe is in error, then your salvation could be at risk because of the spiritual pitfalls you could walk into.

God bless,
Ut

 

[PC_Master]

Then my question is:

What’s you’re basis for believing it’s not true, just b/c you don’t? Scripture never says it’s not true.

Now you’re asking me to affirm a negative. This is very difficult, and perhaps even impossible in some cases.

Why is there reason to believe that God protected the oral traditions of the church, if we see no indication in scripture (or in early church writings) to that extent? You’re saying I should believe it on the basis that the RCC says its true? We’re back into circularity here. I don’t form an affirmative belief in God’s action, unless there’s reason to do so. I see no evidence that God chose to protect the verbal words and teachings of man from error (be they devout or otherwise).

That’s a big assumption that 2000 years of Catholic theology can’t prove you wrong, or that you can always show ‘conflicting things’ very naive.

You’re starting with the assumption that the RCC is right. Joy has actually consulted Roman Catholic theology, it seems, as well as the ECFs and apostolic writings. She hasn’t simply drawn a blanket conclusion from nothingness.

Intrinsically, what the Church teaches is faith, sure there are plenty of doctrines and philosophical proofs, but that’s not the central message, nor should it be.

But why should that faith at all differ from that of the apostles?

Basically this issue would have an effect on every practicing Christian/Jew…

We’ll grant your assumption as true for a moment here. This raises the question – why is it you believe the holy spirit incapable of resolving this issue in the hearts of those who wish to follow Christ? As you’ve said, those who disagreed with the words of the “council of Jerusalem” might have found themselves at odds with the rest of their respective congregations – how is this different from the holy spirit confirming the truth of the issue to the individual believers?

I believe that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth to individual believers, but there is also the spirit of the deciever to contend with who distorts the message of the truth, stirring up greater and greater conflict and dissension.

So the holy spirit is only okay when satan isn’t around? Surely God’s greater than evil, right?

Gathering a council of those with both spiritual maturity and authority sheds light on what the Holy Spirit is truly saying to the church.

Gathering a council of those with spiritual maturity sheds light on what the holy spirit is truly saying to the church. What does authority have to do with it, though? Those who wanted to hear the truth would respect the spiritual maturity held by those in Jerusalem (had they not, they’d have not consulted them). those who did not want to hear, would not listen – whether they spoke with an authority or not. The belief would not change. Thus, spiritual maturity is enough to accomplish the ends that are able to be accomplished (that is, to show the seeking believer the truth).

Let me put it this way. If I say the Holy Spirit tells me this, and you say the Holy Spirit tells you that, we are at an impass. You can try to convince me that I am deceived, but if I am truly convinced in my Holy Spirit, what do we do?

First off, there is no “my holy spirit” versus “your holy spirit”. There is only the holy spirit – there’s only one. What is more appropriate is to say that you are convinced in your belief having been revealed by the holy spirit.

As to what is to be done – the answer is simple. Ask and it shall be given – seek and ye shall find – knock and the door shall be opened to you. (Luke 11:9) God promises to give to those who truly wish to receive. It’s not that hard. It’s just that we’re imperfect, and want to hear things from a more tangible earthly source. (I share that desire, by the way.)

As Protestants we do nothing.

As Protestants, if we are both truly seeking, we both rely on God to provide the answer, and he does.

As Catholics, we turn to our priest, bishop, or the pope for guidance.

Each of whom can err and even disagree with one another.

If that doesn’t solve the issue, a council can be called to settle the matter.

And how many councils have actually been held? And at all of these, how many questions have been answered? And more importantly – how many questions have remained unanswered? Limbo’s a prominent one. People disagree, but because the RCC hadn’t officially announced a position on it, they were left with nothing – they disagreed and had nothing from a higher source to resolve the issue.

While the system is good in theory, it fails in reality, and there’s also the question of whether that system is actually being led by God, or not.

Continued…