The Church's Authority — Circular Reasoning?

[CutlerB]

Dear friends,

I have pondered the question of the authority of the Church today, and I feel stuck with something that sounds like circular reasoning. I’d like to outline the thoughts I had and hope that you can comment on them.

1. The Bible tells us of the Apostles who had teaching authority.
2. The Canon was compiled in the fourth century by the Catholic Church, which is said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, which again is part of the documents in question.

So my problem is this: Couldn’t, on this basis, the Catholic Church have assembled the Canon of Scripture to lead to the teaching authority? I’m struggling to get this into proper words. It seems circular to say the basis of authority is in documents which were later compiled into one volume by the same institution mentioned in those documents.

Is this really a circular argument, or am I missing something or getting something wrong?

I’d be glad, if you could untangle this.

 

[snarflemike]

Dear friends,

I have pondered the question of the authority of the Church today, and I feel stuck with something that sounds like circular reasoning. I’d like to outline the thoughts I had and hope that you can comment on them.

1. The Bible tells us of the Apostles who had teaching authority.

But more importantly, the Church tells us of the Apostles.

1. The Canon was compiled in the fourth century by the Catholic Church, which is said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, which again is part of the documents in question.

So my problem is this: Couldn’t, on this basis, the Catholic Church have assembled the Canon of Scripture to lead to the teaching authority? I’m struggling to get this into proper words. It seems circular to say the basis of authority is in documents which were later compiled into one volume by the same institution mentioned in those documents.

Is this really a circular argument, or am I missing something or getting something wrong?

I’d be glad, if you could untangle this.

If the Church did this then we would expect to have an historical record of it. This holds true for ANY of the great apostacys / corruptions that the Church is alleged to have undergone. But there are no such historical records. So those who allege such things have to invent a total Church cleansing of the historical record, something any historian knows is impossible.

 

[CutlerB]

But more importantly, the Church tells us of the Apostles.

That is true, but doesn’t that result in the same circle?

Maybe it is easier to clear it up by answering: How does one prove the authority of the Church? Whereon does it rest and can this be proven on a basis that does not directly involve faith?

 

[JaKael02]

The Church’s authority comes from Christ. 50% goes to Sacred Scripture/50% goes to Sacred Tradition.

50/50 because both flow from the same source.

However, 90% of truth exists in Sacred Scripture/10% in Sacred Tradition (rough estimate).

Catholics often use the Bible to defend the authority because it is the only authority that Protestants recognize. (So that may be how you are obtaining the circular logic.)

Bible was canonized for litergical use in 400’s. Not infallibly until 1500’s.

Not circular because a close examination of Church history in 1st century A.D. demonstrates the apostles had authority, whom then wrote scripture.

This help at all?

God Bless,
James

 

[CutlerB]

Catholics often use the Bible to defend the authority because it is the only authority that Protestants recognize. (So that may be how you are obtaining the circular logic.)

Well, maybe yes, as I am not a Catholic but sincerely looking to convert in time.

What I meant earlier by “How does one prove the authority of the Church? Whereon does it rest and can this be proven on a basis that does not directly involve faith?” was, that I am often in discussion on religion with agnostic/atheist friends of mine, who constantly throw things like “People voted on what to include in the Bible.” and that sort of arguments.

Is there some line of reasoning, which does not require faith in the Church to prove its authority? Basically I mean, can one argue on the basis of Scripture and Tradition (or History) that the Church has this authoritative position, and how so?

Bible was canonized for litergical use in 400’s. Not infallibly until 1500’s.

Not circular because a close examination of Church history in 1st century A.D. demonstrates the apostles had authority, whom then wrote scripture.

This last point is way too fast for me. I’m sorry, I don’t understand.

 

[ignatius777]

Dear friends,

I have pondered the question of the authority of the Church today, and I feel stuck with something that sounds like circular reasoning. I’d like to outline the thoughts I had and hope that you can comment on them.

1. The Bible tells us of the Apostles who had teaching authority.
2. The Canon was compiled in the fourth century by the Catholic Church, which is said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, which again is part of the documents in question.

So my problem is this: Couldn’t, on this basis, the Catholic Church have assembled the Canon of Scripture to lead to the teaching authority? I’m struggling to get this into proper words. It seems circular to say the basis of authority is in documents which were later compiled into one volume by the same institution mentioned in those documents.

Is this really a circular argument, or am I missing something or getting something wrong?

I’d be glad, if you could untangle this.

If you recognize the apostles had teaching authority then the reasoning cant be “circular”. Clearly no one imagined the apostles would live forever correct? And the Holy Spirit descended upon them on Pentecost which gave them the power and authority did it not? In fact did not the apostles select a replacement for Judus in the way of Mathias? And cant we assume then that further replacments and additions would need to be facilitated as the apostles died off and the church expanded? It seems unlikely Jesus would have hoped the church died when the apostles died. It seems it was intended to go on forever as he said to Peter the church would be built on the rock of Peter and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. In order for that to happen it had to be that proper authority had to be arranged so people could proprely know who spoke the truth. Protestantism is left to its own interpretation with truth being only what the local pastor believes. Do not be fooled

 

[clem456]

That is true, but doesn’t that result in the same circle?

Maybe it is easier to clear it up by answering: How does one prove the authority of the Church? Whereon does it rest and can this be proven on a basis that does not directly involve faith?

Is it fair to say that your question is more about the validity of scripture than about authority? It is beyond my scope to answer that one intelligently.

Let me add that I believe in scripture in my heart, that what the Church teaches is proven true in my life and the lives of others. Add the testimony of the saints over the years.

 

[CutlerB]

Is it fair to say that your question is more about the validity of scripture than about authority? It is beyond my scope to answer that one intelligently.

Let me add that I believe in scripture in my heart, that what the Church teaches is proven true in my life and the lives of others. Add the testimony of the saints over the years.

Well, I just noticed that too. I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. are there any useful verses that would substantiate the claim to the teaching authority of the Church? That’s basically the thing I’d need. Thanks so far!

 

[MarcoPolo]

It’s not circular because the buck stops with God. We believe on the testimony of the early Church (some likely even prior to the formulation of Scripture) that Christ is God Incarnate and appointed authority to those Apostles.

If we recognize that the early Church’s testimony saw that, then their authority isn’t circular, it is real.

Faith is involved, but that does not eliminate reason. As Blessed John Henry Newman said, “For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.”

I think the Old Testament is important here as well, for Christ’s fulfillment of many prophecies helps identify Him as the expected King (e.g. Ps. 22 prophecies death by crucifixion and dividing his garments) just as His resurrection identifies His divine power. So those first witnesses testify to this person’s divine power, who in turn grants them authority. Their contemporaries recognize this authority. The 12 Apostles also reflect the 12 Tribes of Israel. The prophecies fit together, they “ring” true, so to speak, and the early Church wills to believe. The Apostles also provided an installment of several miracles throughout the books of Acts, speaking to the divine authority bestowed upon them. In other words, it’s always God at work, not some circular claim. These Apostles, like the priests of the Old Testament, occupy an “office” which speaks of succession. These Apostles and many of their peer believers accepted martyrdom for this belief, giving credence, along with the other evidence, of its truth.

At any rate, when God is the source, it cannot be circular. Who would accuse God of validating God?

 

[Perplexity]

Dear friends,

I have pondered the question of the authority of the Church today, and I feel stuck with something that sounds like circular reasoning. I’d like to outline the thoughts I had and hope that you can comment on them.

1. The Bible tells us of the Apostles who had teaching authority.
2. The Canon was compiled in the fourth century by the Catholic Church, which is said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, which again is part of the documents in question.

So my problem is this: Couldn’t, on this basis, the Catholic Church have assembled the Canon of Scripture to lead to the teaching authority? I’m struggling to get this into proper words. It seems circular to say the basis of authority is in documents which were later compiled into one volume by the same institution mentioned in those documents.

Is this really a circular argument, or am I missing something or getting something wrong?

I’d be glad, if you could untangle this.

I’ve started a few threads on this in the past, and even emailed a Catholic philosopher on it once I can completely empathize with any frustration you’re having in formulating this lol.

Essentially, I think it boils down to something like this:

We know the Church has divinely given authority because the Deposit of Faith say it does, and we trust the Deposit of Faith because the Church with its divinely given authority says it’s inspired.

 

[clem456]

Let me add that atheists are never satisfied in this area…scripture is not true because it is made up etc…
Belief in the truth of scripture is not only a matter of mind and reason, but of the heart. Scripture changes the hearts of people, that’s why I have faith in it.

As for Church authority, “on this rock I will build my church” etc.
Also keep in mind that if you believe in Jesus Christ, you believe in the Old Testament, because Jesus certainly did. He was an observant Jew who knew and used the scriptures. So, authority and tradition is part of our blood so to speak. Faith does not land in our lap without a foundation.

 

[CutlerB]

We believe on the testimony of the early Church (some likely even prior to the formulation of Scripture) that Christ is God Incarnate and appointed authority to those Apostles.

If we recognize that the early Church’s testimony saw that, then their authority isn’t circular, it is real.

Faith is involved, but that does not eliminate reason. As Blessed John Henry Newman said, “For directly you have a conviction that you ought to believe, reason has done its part, and what is wanted for faith is, not proof, but will.”

These Apostles, like the priests of the Old Testament, occupy an “office” which speaks of succession. These Apostles and many of their peer believers accepted martyrdom for this belief, giving credence, along with the other evidence, of its truth.

That’s what I was looking for! I’m not versed at all in Church history, so if there is a lot of testimony there, that indeed to me is convincing.

Essentially, I think it boils down to something like this:

We know the Church has divinely given authority because the Deposit of Faith say it does, and we trust the Deposit of Faith because the Church with its divinely given authority says it’s inspired.

That would be the kind of sentence I was trying to make, but MarcoPolo already eliminated that particular problem.

 

[Ulicka_Mbalzac]

I think it is a valid question. If you think it is “circular reasoning”… perhaps it is “circular reasoning”. Or you can accept the wise reasoning of your fellow posters that it is not circular because it clearly states that God has the final say and He, through the instrument of the Holy Mother Church, has clearly given an alternative rationale. God cannot “validate” Himself. He does not have to. He is “Ultra Valid”. His Authority trumps any “authenticity” that can really only be “proven” or “disproven” imperfectly by man. In other words, we don’t know what is “proven” or “unproven” but it is clear what the “Authority” is.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well, I just noticed that too. I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. are there any useful verses that would substantiate the claim to the teaching authority of the Church? That’s basically the thing I’d need. Thanks so far!

If one of us were to compile a list of Bible verses which satisfied you that the Bible supports the claims of the Catholic bishops to authority, would that really break the circle you are talking about? What is your basis for accepting the Bible as the Word of God, and what is your basis for trusting your own private interpretation of whatever passages we can dig up from it on this topic?

Note that to some extent I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. Looking forward to your reply.

 

[Perplexity]

That would be the kind of sentence I was trying to make, but MarcoPolo already eliminated that particular problem.

That’s true, but this is only one formulation.

 

[steve_b]

Dear friends,

I have pondered the question of the authority of the Church today, and I feel stuck with something that sounds like circular reasoning. I’d like to outline the thoughts I had and hope that you can comment on them.

1. The Bible tells us of the Apostles who had teaching authority.
2. The Canon was compiled in the fourth century by the Catholic Church, which is said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit, which again is part of the documents in question.

So my problem is this: Couldn’t, on this basis, the Catholic Church have assembled the Canon of Scripture to lead to the teaching authority? I’m struggling to get this into proper words. It seems circular to say the basis of authority is in documents which were later compiled into one volume by the same institution mentioned in those documents.

I think Augustine capsulized it well (emphasis mine)

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?" Augustine, Epistle of Manichaeus 5,6 (A.D. 397).

Ergo, belief that only specific books we have now are scripture, and that those books are the word of God, comes from the authority of the Catholic Church. i.e. The NT was written in, by and for the Catholic Church. The Church then assembled the OT + the NT, ergo establishing the table of contents by canonizing only certain books. In the creed, we say I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, because the Catholic Church is an article of faith. We believe this Church is 100% divinely established by Jesus, who ensures it’s the pilar and foundation of truth on earth [1 Tim 3:15]
C:

Is this really a circular argument, or am I missing something or getting something wrong?

I’d be glad, if you could untangle this.

Augustine showed by valid authority from Jesus and succession of bishops from Peter, down to his day, kept his argument with Mani from becomming circular.

 

[porthos11]

You can start with the Bible, especially the Gospels, but NOT as the inspired Word of God, but merely as a collection of ancient documents. Your task at this point is to establish that (1) what we have is an accurate representation of the originals and (2) that they describe historically accurate events.

(1) can be established from modern textual criticism. I don’t have the expertise but it can be reasonably proven that our critical editions, with minor differences, are accurate representations of the originals.

(2) is a bit more challenging but we can glean from both the Biblical (still presumed to be non-inspired) texts and non-biblical testimonies. This is beyond my expertise too but as far as I’m concerned as a person of faith, I have sufficient historical evidence to support the fact that the Apostles (who did exist) died professing to be eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus. To die professing to be an eyewitness is a far cry from dying as a martyr for your faith but did not witness. I have yet to know of a martyr professing to be an eyewitness to an event that they know is a hoax. It’s on this basis that I accept the Resurrection to be true.

Thing is, if the Resurrection is true, then the man who said what he said has to be who he claimed to be (from the Gospels, but still not as inspired texts and backed by other NT writings and patristic quotations). This man claimed to be God and he promised to found a Church and grant it authority.

It’s that Church’s authority that declared which writings were inspired and which were not. That’s how I know that the Bible is inspired.

 

[CutlerB]

If one of us were to compile a list of Bible verses which satisfied you that the Bible supports the claims of the Catholic bishops to authority, would that really break the circle you are talking about? What is your basis for accepting the Bible as the Word of God, and what is your basis for trusting your own private interpretation of whatever passages we can dig up from it on this topic?

Note that to some extent I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. Looking forward to your reply.

Good question! The circle to me is not existent any longer, as MarcoPolo pointed out. There is the testimony of a “third party” which I find convincing.
Why I believe the Bible to be God’s Word? I’m not fully aware myself. I find it fascinating, it changes people’s hearts (as it has changed me), it’s message and sheer depth give it a touch that makes me think of it as something from above.
Private interpretation? I wouldn’t rely on that but I would rather seek explanation from qualified sources, instead of myself. After all, I am by no means a scholar!

 

[littlepilgrim]

The short and sweet answer I heard for this is that you can look at the bible as a normal old historical document and easily see that the Jesus and the apostles were real and that a church was founded. Still looking at the Scriptures as just old writings we can see that the Catholic Church is that church Jesus founded. From there we can know the scriptures are inspired because the Church said so.

 

[CutlerB]

You can start with the Bible, especially the Gospels, but NOT as the inspired Word of God, but merely as a collection of ancient documents. Your task at this point is to establish that (1) what we have is an accurate representation of the originals and (2) that they describe historically accurate events.

(1) can be established from modern textual criticism. I don’t have the expertise but it can be reasonably proven that our critical editions, with minor differences, are accurate representations of the originals.

(2) is a bit more challenging but we can glean from both the Biblical (still presumed to be non-inspired) texts and non-biblical testimonies. This is beyond my expertise too but as far as I’m concerned as a person of faith, I have sufficient historical evidence to support the fact that the Apostles (who did exist) died professing to be eyewitnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus. To die professing to be an eyewitness is a far cry from dying as a martyr for your faith but did not witness. I have yet to know of a martyr professing to be an eyewitness to an event that they know is a hoax. It’s on this basis that I accept the Resurrection to be true.

Thing is, if the Resurrection is true, then the man who said what he said has to be who he claimed to be (from the Gospels, but still not as inspired texts and backed by other NT writings and patristic quotations). This man claimed to be God and he promised to found a Church and grant it authority.

It’s that Church’s authority that declared which writings were inspired and which were not. That’s how I know that the Bible is inspired.

Great! Thank you so much for that kind of answer, it’s just what I needed