Mary's "Saving Office"

[Eufrosnia]

First off, thank you, Eufrosnia, for being so willing to post your reasoning in a logical syllogism. I’ve asked Catholics in the past to present their views in such a way, and my request was stubbornly refused. I was

No problem. Since I believe that this reasoning is what settles the matter, not just between Protestants and Catholics but Catholics vs. ALL other religions or ideologies, I am very much willing to discuss it.

On what authority do you know these are all “historical facts”?

Well, history is an observable realm of knowledge. I can verify if this happened or not using historical methods which maybe carried out by me.

So I can be certain of a claim that a person died and rose from the dead by evaluating second hand claims. Why? Because it does not require some extraordinary capability on the part of witnesses to observe it. I will of course have to make sure they are not lying but that is part of the historical analysis of the situation. In either case, it is an observable realm of knowledge.

Now if someone were to just claim that Jesus was Son of God, that would be doubtful. Why? Because that is a supernatural claim and the claimant would need to have supernatural perception to make such a claim.

So that is an important distinction you must make.

Again, on what authority do you know for certain that this is a historical fact?

Same as above. If I were a historian, it would actually be my own authority and my colleagues.

And in that case you must rely on your own private interpretations of those many Church documents. You still have that nagging problem.

Ok, so let us ponder a bit as to what you are saying. It is similar to equating having a parent with you who can advise you and having a book with a set of rules the parents wrote down.

You can get by with the book, CERTAINLY, given that you are intelligent. But you may make mistakes in interpreting it. It maybe because you forgot the initial context of the rules or didn’t realize that your parents didn’t include all the rules in the book.

Now when your parents point that out to you, you correct yourself and obey what they say and grow in your knowledge.

So the difference between Catholic and Protestant is as follows. The Catholic listens to the parents and reads the book, prepared to be corrected when the parents tell them they are wrong. Protestants read the book assuming they don’t need the parents or anyone else and that their interpretation of the book cannot be wrong.

Do you honestly think the two are the same?

Not without making yourself your own infallible interpreter—unless you have direct access to the pope himself, but I doubt that. If by “asking the church” you mean consulting the vast amount of writings of the church fathers, then you are stuck in the same mire I mentioned above: relying on your own private interpretation of those writings.

Please read the above.

Sure there is. Historical-grammatical exegesis. Context.

And the fact that you might be missing information that was not all included in the book.

Well, I don’t consider myself to be the ultimate authority over Scripture, so God won’t ask me that question. I do submit to authorities in my church. I would not trade places with anyone, however, on that great Day, who is asked by God why he made himself a greater authority than God’s word.

But why would you submit to “authorities” of your church? What authority do they have? Where does it come from? Can you trace their certification as valid Theologians and Philosophers back to the first Apostles? If not, what makes you think that these individuals are authoritative?

Well, my friend, I don’t think you have proven this, not even a bit. I, on the other hand, have shown reasonably that you are in the same boat as us. You ultimately must rely on your own private interpretation to make sense of Catholic teaching. That fact is undeniable because any time we read any text whatsoever, we are interpreting. Otherwise, reading is a pointless endeavor. The dismal illusion you indulge yourself in is to think that you are free from this while Protestants are not. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

Well, to be objective, you asked a question but did not pose any counter argument yet to my deductive argument for the authority of the Catholic Church. So I am not sure which display of reason you are speaking of on your part.

But something I find more troubling is that you seem to think “If Eufrosnia is wrong, then we are all good”. I think you are forgetting the fact that it still leaves entire Christianity as something unworthy of assent. Why? Because both the Protestant and Catholics are just claiming arbitrary authority to themselves or their Church members regarding supernatural truths. If anything, both of these camps of thought should be purged from the earth.

Do you understand what is at stake here?

 

[Eufrosnia]

True enuf …

And, and let us recall when Christ was tempted by Satan … what was his authority to dispute Satan ?

Sacred Scripture !! Christ quoted scripture to him … and thus, satan was negated/defeated.

And, what did Paul say about SS ? “ALL scripture is ‘inspired’ of God, and proffitable,… etc”

I am really not sure what both of you can’t seem to get with my objection.

1. brb3 and koineman claim that Scripture is the inspired word of God
2. But that is a supernatural truth
3. Neither brb3 or koineman can perceive the supernatural
4. Therefore their claim is unreasonable and unworthy of belief

Or lets take the other variation

1. Scripture is the Word of God because it says so in Scripture
2. But I can write a book that says it is the Word of God but that won’t make it true
3. So Scripture cannot be the Word of God merely by the fact that it is written in Scripture

So the correct variation is as follows

1. Scripture is the Word of God because the Church states as such
2. We know the Church has the authority to teach as such since is in charge of the field of knowledge that Christ had given to us.
3. The Church teaches that it is also the final authority in interpreting the text

In other words, this is simple stuff that you daily follow that you seem hesitant to do so on this issue. If you want to get medical advise, you listen to the Doctors. You don’t read a medical text and try to diagnose yourself. Do you know how many problems happen because people read up internet articles or medical books on diseases and try to diagnose themselves?

Same goes for Christianity.

 

[Koineman]

Well, history is an observable realm of knowledge. I can verify if this happened or not using historical methods which maybe carried out by me.

Well, history is not observable in the sense that we observed what actually happened, when it happened. Furthermore, what historical methods are you referring to?

So I can be certain of a claim that a person died and rose from the dead by evaluating second hand claims. Why? Because it does not require some extraordinary capability on the part of witnesses to observe it. I will of course have to make sure they are not lying but that is part of the historical analysis of the situation. In either case, it is an observable realm of knowledge.

So how do you ascertain they were telling the truth?

Same as above. If I were a historian, it would actually be my own authority and my colleagues.

Interesting. But you are not a historian, so you must either:

1. make yourself a historical authority, but that would make you guilty of doing the same thing you implied earlier that Protestants do, namely, that we are like people who make ourselves doctors even though we are not; or
2. trust professional historians, but that just begs the question: How do you know that those historians are reliable?

And in that case you must rely on your own private interpretations of those many Church documents. You still have that nagging problem.

Ok, so let us ponder a bit as to what you are saying. It is similar to equating having a parent with you who can advise you and having a book with a set of rules the parents wrote down.

You can get by with the book, CERTAINLY, given that you are intelligent. But you may make mistakes in interpreting it. It maybe because you forgot the initial context of the rules or didn’t realize that your parents didn’t include all the rules in the book.

Now when your parents point that out to you, you correct yourself and obey what they say and grow in your knowledge.

Exactly! But you do NOT have the authors of those many church documents physically with you, so you cannot verify the correct interpretation face to face, as you could in the parent analogy. For that matter, you don’t have the authors of even contemporary RCC documents with you physically, so you can’t verify with them, either.

So the difference between Catholic and Protestant is as follows. The Catholic listens to the parents and reads the book

No, they don’t. They listen to interpretations of the book, and that they must because they don’t have the original authors around to verify the correct interpretation. You are SO in the same boat as Protestants.

prepared to be corrected when the parents tell them they are wrong.

That would be great if the “parents” (the authors of all those ancient church documents) were alive to ensure the correct interpretation. But they are not.

Protestants read the book assuming they don’t need the parents or anyone else and that their interpretation of the book cannot be wrong.

Wrong. You should become better acquainted with what Protestants actually believe. We don’t say that we “don’t need … anyone else.” We believe in the necessity of authorities in the church. We just maintain that the teaching of those authorities must always come under the authority of Scripture.

But why would you submit to “authorities” of your church?

If their teaching accurately reflects the teachings of the apostles, then their teaching is authoritative. Their teaching is not authoritative merely because they hold an office. It is authoritative only insofar as it faithfully communicates what the apostles passed on. That is the same test I apply to the RCC, and by that test I have found that the RCC is not the one true church because it preaches another gospel. And I assure you that I have investigated the matter quite thoroughly and carefully. Not only have I studied Catholic teaching on this, particularly the Tridentine statements, but also I went through a major, intense pro-Catholic investigation for about six months last year. I was going to mass (was baptized in the RCC as an infant) and confession, and I was delving heavily into the Church. I actually was in favor of the RCC at that time. I was biased for the RCC, not against it, and so I was looking very hard for any explanations that would vindicate their teachings. In the end, though, I could not find that, and not only could I not find that, I also found their teachings to be contrary to the gospel. I would go more into that, but that would get us way off topic.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well, history is not observable in the sense that we observed what actually happened, when it happened. Furthermore, what historical methods are you referring to?

So instead of making huge thread posts, lets condense our discussion because it is certainly possible. There are two issues here.

1) With respect to historical truths

I am not sure why you suddenly decided to say that “You have no historical authority”. Because I may indeed be authoritative in the field. Not that it matters on a forum anyway.

But my point is that historical truths are observable truths, not directly by us, but those who lived at that time. Supernatural truths like “God is a Trinity” or “Jesus is God” are not observable truths.

So I don’t necessarily even need to be a historian. I can just reason using what I know as accepted history. I can even reinvent all historical methods from scratch because all of these fields deal with empirically verifiable phenomenon (not supernatural). (So perhaps an error you make is that you assume that like the empirical fields of knowledge, you can perhaps discover supernatural truths and develop interpretation methodologies from scratch?.)

A simple way to put it would be that I can accept that witnesses were saying the truth regarding the death and resurrection since they died for that truth. That extraordinary witness gives me reason to think the claim true. Now I don’t need another extraordinary follow up witness to the martyrdom of these individuals since that is not an extraordinary claim. People die everyday after all. So I could discover that truth from a history book and then conclude that the claim of the death and Resurrection is true.

Now this is usually how it works in any field and any scope of knowledge. Which part of this seems unreasonable to you?

You seem to also think that this goes to an infinite regress. That too is incorrect. All I would bother, if I were looking for a Historian, would be his certification and acceptance of his work in the circle of expert Historians. As I said before, this is just how it works in any field of knowledge, especially in Academia.

If you want to challenge this thinking and reasoning, we are not just talking about Christianity anymore but entire Academic systems. So for all purposes, your position and arguments would be considered absurd anyway.

Also, the idea that the “Church is correct only so far as it is consistent with Scripture” is a logically meaningless statement. It makes a hidden assumption that “Church must be consistent with my honest interpretation of Scripture”. So in a way, you are really pitting your authority regarding interpretation against the Church. There is also the issue of not all Divine Revelation being included in Scripture and being passed down through Tradition. Since some people do not understand the difference between consistency and contained in Scripture, they assume that anything not explicitly mentioned in Scripture is a fabrication.

Anyway, all of this is because you don’t want to follow the Church but follow yourself, is it not? You may want to say “I want to follow God and his Word” but in the end, that Word has to be interpreted and it does not change the fact that you designated yourself the Authority capable of doing so.

2) I don’t have direct access to the Pope

I am not sure what part of this is difficult to understand. If you had a parent, which is the Church, then why is it hard to listen to it? The point here is not even about getting it 100% right from the get go as to what the Church teaches. The point here is that you do everything possible to assent to it, obey it and follow its teachings.

But you have somehow made this in to “how do I arrive at 100% certainty that this is what the Church means”. To be frank, if you are really interested in knowing 100%, you can present your writings regarding a matter to the local bishop and they will verify it for you. Otherwise the faithful know what is right and wrong through a sense of tradition. Whenever the faithful strays even according to tradition, the Church is there to correct them.

So your dilemma is still not clear. You want to assent to a book that cannot slap you in the face and say “Wake up! What you just said is wrong!”. But the Church can do that and does do that.

---

More importantly. Do you realize that “Catholic Church is false” is not grounds to think “Protestantism is true”? Unless the Protestant Church can prove its authority in a reasonable way, it too is guilty of being a facade.

Also, please read my reply to brb3 on another important topic of this discussion

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10720949&postcount=82

 

[brb3]

I am really not sure what both of you can’t seem to get with my objection.

1. brb3 and koineman claim that Scripture is the inspired word of God
2. But that is a supernatural truth
3. Neither brb3 or koineman can perceive the supernatural
4. Therefore their claim is unreasonable and unworthy of belief

Or lets take the other variation

1. Scripture is the Word of God because it says so in Scripture
2. But I can write a book that says it is the Word of God but that won’t make it true
3. So Scripture cannot be the Word of God merely by the fact that it is written in Scripture

So the correct variation is as follows

1. Scripture is the Word of God because the Church states as such
2. We know the Church has the authority to teach as such since is in charge of the field of knowledge that Christ had given to us.
3. The Church teaches that it is also the final authority in interpreting the text

In other words, this is simple stuff that you daily follow that you seem hesitant to do so on this issue. If you want to get medical advise, you listen to the Doctors. You don’t read a medical text and try to diagnose yourself. Do you know how many problems happen because people read up internet articles or medical books on diseases and try to diagnose themselves?

Same goes for Christianity.

Not sure what you point is …

… we go straight to the GREAT PHYSICIAN, to be healed. And, we are taught to imitate Christ … and so we do. Obeying his commands and Beatitudes in NT Scriptures, listening to the Paraclete he sent us, and intent on being a worthy/obedient Disciple of his.

Sacred Scripture is key, and all Traditions too … that are clearly identified as believed/taught by the 11, then 12 … plus Paul ---- and those who they appointed to leadership. And, our inspired ECF’s in first several centuries also … some of whom were Bishops too. Esp. Ambrose, Irenaeus, Bishop of Hippo, Justin the Martyr, Athanasius the Great, etc, etc, etc … even JP2 and Benedict !! Where ever the spirit leads us … we follow, where-ever truth is taught … we discover the source and acknowledge it !!

:hug3:…& :grouphug:

 

[Eufrosnia]

Not sure what you point is …

… we go straight to the GREAT PHYSICIAN, to be healed. And, we are taught to imitate Christ … and so we do. Obeying his commands and Beatitudes in NT Scriptures, listening to the Paraclete he sent us, and intent on being a worthy/obedient Disciple of his.

Sacred Scripture is key, and all Traditions too … that are clearly identified as believed/taught by the 11, then 12 … plus Paul ---- and those who they appointed to leadership. And, our inspired ECF’s in first several centuries also … some of whom were Bishops too. Esp. Ambrose, Irenaeus, Bishop of Hippo, Justin the Martyr, Athanasius the Great, etc, etc, etc … even JP2 and Benedict !! Where ever the spirit leads us … we follow, where-ever truth is taught … we discover the source and acknowledge it !!

:hug3:…& :grouphug:

Um what do you mean? Lets say all Church fathers, some Apostles, and Popes claimed that “Bible is inspired word of God”. If they do not have authority to make such claims to begin with, what reason do you have to assent to it?

If you do agree that they have authority, why aren’t you listening to other things they have said?

Also, how do you discover “supernatural truths”? You cannot recognize something is true in the supernatural world. You can only verify who has true authority to teach supernatural truths. Yes? If your answer is NO, how can we discover “x is certainly true regarding the supernatural”?

 

[SyCarl]

The Church only defines a dogma when the faithful are led by someone or some group to doubt what has been held as true. Protestantism, not initially but eventually, in it’s anti-Catholic ferver, had begun to doubt the revelations concerning Mary, and this led to doubt among the faithful. So the Church found it necessary to identify the belief in the IC as dogma.

Much earlier than the Reformation the Immaculate Conception as defined by Pius IX was denied by very prominent people in the Church. Remember that Pius defined that from the first instance of her conception Mary was free from all taint of original sin.

In the Middle Ages this view was defended by the Franciscans championed by Duns Scotus. The opposite view was asserted by many Dominicans, including Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas wrote:

If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all….But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb

.
Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 27, Article 2
newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm

Given Aquinas’ influence why would the Immaculate Conception have been defined at that point.

Earlier, Bernard of Clairvaux had opposed the Immaculate Conception of Mary writing:

Wherefore I cannot but wonder that there should have been among you at this time some who wished to sully this splendid fame of your Church by introducing a new Festival, a rite which the Church knows nothing of, and which reason does not prove, nor ancient tradition hand down to us. Have we the pretension to be more learned or more devoted than the Fathers? It is a dangerous presumption to establish in such a matter what their prudence left unestablished. And the matter in question is of such a nature that it could not possibly have escaped the diligence of the Fathers if they had not thought that they ought not to occupy themselves with it….For how does the consequence follow that since the conception has preceded the birth, and the birth is holy, the conception should be considered holy also? Did it make the birth holy because it preceded it? Although the one came first that the other might be, yet not that it might be holy. From whence came that holiness to the conception which was to be transmitted to the birth which followed? Was it not rather because the conception preceded without holiness that it was needful for the being conceived to be sanctified, that a holy birth might then follow? Or shall we say that the birth which was later than the conception shared with it its holiness? It might be, indeed, that the sanctification which was worked in her when conceived passed over to the birth which followed; but it could not be possible that it should have a retrospective effect upon the conception which had preceded it….If, therefore, before her conception she could not possibly be sanctified, since she did not exist, nor in the conception itself, because of the sin which inhered in it, it remains to be believed that she received sanctification when existing in the womb after conception, which, by excluding sin, made her birth holy, but not her conception….Willingly the glorious Virgin will be without this honour, by which either a sin seems to be honoured or a sanctity supposed which is not a fact. And, besides, she will by no means be pleased by a presumptuous novelty against the custom of the Church, a novelty which is the mother of rashness, the sister of superstition, the daughter of levity.

LETTER LXV (circa A.D. 1140),To the Canons of Lyons, on the Conception of S. Mary.
ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.lxviii.html?highlight=mary#highlight

 

[brb3]

Um what do you mean? Lets say all Church fathers, some Apostles, and Popes claimed that “Bible is inspired word of God”. If they do not have authority to make such claims to begin with, what reason do you have to assent to it?

If you do agree that they have authority, why aren’t you listening to other things they have said?

Also, how do you discover “supernatural truths”? You cannot recognize something is true in the supernatural world. You can only verify who has true authority to teach supernatural truths. Yes? If your answer is NO, how can we discover “x is certainly true regarding the supernatural”?

Man … you sure go OFF TOPIC alot. This thread in on Mary.

Start a new thread on your pet peeve … and lets debate … ON TOPIC !!

 

[SyCarl]

So let me explain the Catholic position as you try to answer the above. The Catholic position is that

1. Historicity of Death and Resurrection of Jesus proves his authority to teach and be knowledgeable of Transcendent truths
2. Jesus was a rabbi who had chosen students - Apostles
3. Since rabbi’s passed down their authority to their chosen students, the Apostles have the authority to teach the truths regarding Jesus and what he has revealed about the Transcendent
4. The Apostles themselves had chosen students - Apostolic Successors
5. Therefore it is within natural reason to now accept the authority of the Apostolic Successors
6. The Apostolic Successors are present in the Catholic Church
7. Therefore anyone who wants to be a follower of Jesus must assent to the authority of the Catholic Church

This Church teaches that it is the final authority in interpreting Tradition and Scripture. We listen to it, not because it makes sense but because it is the Authority. We don’t listen to Luther, ourselves, or some other person who proclaims himself a Theologian and Expert because they have no authority unless the Church accepts them.

Now unless you can refute the above line of reasoning that a Catholic uses, the Catholic position stands.

This is but your personal interpretation and while you may find it convincing, that does not make your reasoning true.

Ignatius of Antioch does not seem to have chosen a successor or to realize that he would have one. On his way to martyrdom he wrote:

Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it.

Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.ix.html

Your position also contains some large assumptions that lead to your conclusion.

Was the authority of the Apostles passed on to their successors and their successors after them? Jesus gave the Apostles authority to heal every kind of sickness and disease. He told them to raise the dead. They had authority to receive new Divine revelation and proclaim it. Do the bishops, Pope or the Church have such authority today?

Assuming a teaching authority was passed on is it limited solely to those named as successors?

Tertullian indicated that what was important to succession was the doctrine that was taught, not the literal succession

To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine.

Tertullian (Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 32)
newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

it does not guarantee the it will be passed on infallibly. Even during the lifetimes of the Apostles, a number of the churches they founded soon fell into error thus requiring correction such as in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians.

You also say that Apostolic Succession means that a follower of Jesus must assent to the authority of the Catholic Church. Does not the Church recognize the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. Why must a person follow the succession in the Catholic Church rather than any of these others?
[/quote]

 

[Eufrosnia]

Man … you sure go OFF TOPIC alot. This thread in on Mary.

Start a new thread on your pet peeve … and lets debate … ON TOPIC !!

Well, all problems stem from the same root. So we will always come down to that issue. Anyway, the new thread is open and we can discuss more there.

 

[Eufrosnia]

This is but your personal interpretation and while you may find it convincing, that does not make your reasoning true.

Ignatius of Antioch does not seem to have chosen a successor or to realize that he would have one. On his way to martyrdom he wrote:

Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.ix.html

Your position also contains some large assumptions that lead to your conclusion.

Was the authority of the Apostles passed on to their successors and their successors after them? Jesus gave the Apostles authority to heal every kind of sickness and disease. He told them to raise the dead. They had authority to receive new Divine revelation and proclaim it. Do the bishops, Pope or the Church have such authority today?

Assuming a teaching authority was passed on is it limited solely to those named as successors?

Tertullian indicated that what was important to succession was the doctrine that was taught, not the literal succession

Tertullian (Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 32)
newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

it does not guarantee the it will be passed on infallibly. Even during the lifetimes of the Apostles, a number of the churches they founded soon fell into error thus requiring correction such as in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians.

You also say that Apostolic Succession means that a follower of Jesus must assent to the authority of the Catholic Church. Does not the Church recognize the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. Why must a person follow the succession in the Catholic Church rather than any of these others?

As many have requested, and this is rightly out of topic, we can continue the discussion here

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=784589

Also, if I may ask, it will help if you say what part of my argument is logically incorrect or which premise is invalid.

Also, since I do not posit a theological premise, it does not undermine the argument if you quote Church fathers. Because they delve on Theology after already accepting the Church as an authority.

But let us continue the discussion on that thread!

 

[Koineman]

So instead of making huge thread posts, lets condense our discussion because it is certainly possible. There are two issues here.

1) With respect to historical truths

I am not sure why you suddenly decided to say that “You have no historical authority”. Because I may indeed be authoritative in the field. Not that it matters on a forum anyway.

Because you wrote, “If I were a historian …”

But my point is that historical truths are observable truths, not directly by us, but those who lived at that time. So I don’t necessarily even need to be a historian. I can just reason using what I know as accepted history.

“Accepted history”? Accepted by whom?

I can even reinvent all historical methods from scratch because all of these fields deal with empirically verifiable phenomenon (not supernatural).

Historical events are not empirically verifiable. You can’t observe them or discern them with your senses, which is what empiricism involves.

A simple way to put it would be that I can accept that witnesses were saying the truth regarding the death and resurrection since they died for that truth.

That doesn’t prove much. We know that there are plenty of fanatics out there who will die for crazy ideas, whether political, religious, or otherwise. Witness Josef Goebbels and his wife: They killed all their children and then committed suicide—because of the downfall of what they were politically fanatical about. And let’s not overlook a more contemporary phenomenon: radical Islamic suicide bombers who die because they believe in the false idea that they’re going to go to paradise for it.

You seem to also think that this goes to an infinite regress. That too is incorrect. All I would bother, if I were looking for a Historian, would be his certification and acceptance of his work in the circle of expert Historians. As I said before, this is just how it works in any field of knowledge, especially in Academia.

Yes, a person’s credentials and expertise are strong indicators that they are reliable, but professional background does not make one immune to personal bias. Even experts and scholars can ignore facts that go against their preferred interpretation of things. No one is neutral.

If you want to challenge this thinking and reasoning, we are not just talking about Christianity anymore but entire Academic systems.

It’s not that I’m challenging academic systems but rather I’m pointing out that in order for you to conclude that the RCC is the one true church, you have to rely on someone or some people whose reliability you cannot be 100% sure of, in the effort to accept a church that you can believe teaches with 100% accuracy. Historians can be biased, as I pointed out. Not only that, but there could be other historians that disagree with their conclusions—unless you’ve gone the full extent of determining that all historians without exception agree that all the historical facts you mentioned really happened.

In addition, your argument is further proof that you must rely on your own private interpretation of what you have learned. I say that because the very act of forming a syllogism necessarily involves interpretation—a making sense of—a series of points. After all, that is what your conclusion is: an interpretation of the premises taken together as a whole. Furthermore, you have to be absolutely sure that your argument does not exclude any premises that would render your conclusion false. Unfortunately, that is the very thing you have failed to do. Your argument seems to depend on the idea that historical succession of men is the only criterion needed to determine whether a church is truly apostolic, yet the New Testament speaks of an additional criterion—what those men teach:

” 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:8-9, NASB)

Note how Paul does not exclude even himself from this anathema if he were to preach another gospel. Even angels—messengers from God—are to be accursed if they present another gospel. Now Paul would not have written this to his audience, the Galatian Christians, unless he expected them to interpret teaching that comes to them and to make a decision based on that interpretation. It should also be borne in mind that Paul was writing to the Galatian believers as a whole, not just the church leaders.

The acceptance of anyone who claims to speak for God, according to Paul, is based on the content of their gospel message.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[Koineman]

Part 2:

One more point about your argument: Your second premise was, “Jesus was a rabbi --Historical fact.” Was He an actual rabbi in the sense of leading a synagogue and being an established religious leader of the Jews, or was it just that people called Him by that title, sometimes out of hypocrisy and sometimes out of sincere respect?

Also, the idea that the “Church is correct only so far as it is consistent with Scripture” is a logically meaningless statement. It makes a hidden assumption that “Church must be consistent with my honest interpretation of Scripture”. So in a way, you are really pitting your authority regarding interpretation against the Church.

I’m not pitting my authority against it but rather exercising discernment as to whether the RCC teaches another gospel. The apostle Paul encouraged his Galatian readers to do the same. Here is that passage again:

“8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Gal. 1:8-9, NASB)

Anyway, all of this is because you don’t want to follow the Church but follow yourself, is it not? You may want to say “I want to follow God and his Word” but in the end, that Word has to be interpreted and it does not change the fact that you designated yourself the Authority capable of doing so.

As I’ve been showing you, you are in the same boat. You must rely on private interpretation to make sense of what you read in the various Catholic writings, and that amounts to making yourself an interpretive authority. You even said that you can go to various church writings to verify that what the RCC teaches is true. That necessarily involves interpretation on your part. I don’t see what you don’t get about that. You basically have three choices:

1. Rely on your private interpretation when reading anything the RCC or church fathers wrote; or
2. Rely on others’ interpretations of them; or
3. Ask the authors of the documents themselves (Augustine, et al.), or the Pope himself, but of course that is impossible.

You cannot get around the interpretation issue.

2) I don’t have direct access to the Pope

I am not sure what part of this is difficult to understand. If you had a parent, which is the Church, then why is it hard to listen to it?

I made this clear already more than once: You can’t ask the church magisterium directly, like you could ask parents directly. Your analogy quickly falls apart.

But you have somehow made this in to “how do I arrive at 100% certainty that this is what the Church means”.

Somehow? I’ve arrived at it very rationally, and plain for all on this board to see. You claim that Protestants have uncertainty because they don’t have any living authority to verify whether their beliefs are true. You, however, have the same problem unless you can call up the RCC magisterium whenever you want to get clarification. And that’s a lot of long-distance phone calls.

To be frank, if you are really interested in knowing 100%, you can present your writings regarding a matter to the local bishop and they will verify it for you.

The issue here isn’t whether I need verification. The relevant issue is whether you have the kind of certainty you claim to have, which you feel makes the RCC superior to Protestantism.

More importantly. Do you realize that “Catholic Church is false” is not grounds to think “Protestantism is true”?

I never made that argument. My argument, as is clear to anyone who reads our exchange, has been that the Catholics are not on the better epistemic ground you think they’re on.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Part 2:

One more point about your argument: Your second premise was, “Jesus was a rabbi --Historical fact.” Was He an actual rabbi in the sense of leading a synagogue and being an established religious leader of the Jews, or was it just that people called Him by that title, sometimes out of hypocrisy and sometimes out of sincere respect?

I’m not pitting my authority against it but rather exercising discernment as to whether the RCC teaches another gospel. The apostle Paul encouraged his Galatian readers to do the same. Here is that passage again:

“8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Gal. 1:8-9, NASB)

As I’ve been showing you, you are in the same boat. You must rely on private interpretation to make sense of what you read in the various Catholic writings, and that amounts to making yourself an interpretive authority. You even said that you can go to various church writings to verify that what the RCC teaches is true. That necessarily involves interpretation on your part. I don’t see what you don’t get about that. You basically have three choices:

1. Rely on your private interpretation when reading anything the RCC or church fathers wrote; or
2. Rely on others’ interpretations of them; or
3. Ask the authors of the documents themselves (Augustine, et al.), or the Pope himself, but of course that is impossible.

You cannot get around the interpretation issue.

I made this clear already more than once: You can’t ask the church magisterium directly, like you could ask parents directly. Your analogy quickly falls apart.

Somehow? I’ve arrived at it very rationally, and plain for all on this board to see. You claim that Protestants have uncertainty because they don’t have any living authority to verify whether their beliefs are true. You, however, have the same problem unless you can call up the RCC magisterium whenever you want to get clarification. And that’s a lot of long-distance phone calls.

The issue here isn’t whether I need verification. The relevant issue is whether you have the kind of certainty you claim to have, which you feel makes the RCC superior to Protestantism.

I never made that argument. My argument, as is clear to anyone who reads our exchange, has been that the Catholics are not on the better epistemic ground you think they’re on.

replied to you on the other thread. As I said before, if Catholics are just as badly positioned on epistemic grounds (though I have no clue how they are), then entire Christianity should be wiped out because it is unworthy of belief.

 

[brb3]

This is but your personal interpretation and while you may find it convincing, that does not make your reasoning true.

Ignatius of Antioch does not seem to have chosen a successor or to realize that he would have one. On his way to martyrdom he wrote:

Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Romans, Chapter 9)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.v.ix.html

Your position also contains some large assumptions that lead to your conclusion.

Was the authority of the Apostles passed on to their successors and their successors after them? Jesus gave the Apostles authority to heal every kind of sickness and disease. He told them to raise the dead. They had authority to receive new Divine revelation and proclaim it. Do the bishops, Pope or the Church have such authority today?

Assuming a teaching authority was passed on is it limited solely to those named as successors?

Tertullian indicated that what was important to succession was the doctrine that was taught, not the literal succession

Tertullian (Prescription Against Heresies, Chapter 32)
newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

it does not guarantee the it will be passed on infallibly. Even during the lifetimes of the Apostles, a number of the churches they founded soon fell into error thus requiring correction such as in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians.

You also say that Apostolic Succession means that a follower of Jesus must assent to the authority of the Catholic Church. Does not the Church recognize the Apostolic Succession of the Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East. Why must a person follow the succession in the Catholic Church rather than any of these others?

Good points …

but, lets link the discussions to Mary …and her ‘Saving Office’. What is your take on Mary & early Apostolic teaching, traditions on her ?