Using the Church's authority to prove the Church's authority?

[Non_Serviam]

Yesterday on another thread the topic of circular reasoning came up and hijacking things slightly, I posted the following:

I’ve always found the following two constructions to be more along the lines of circular reasoning.

1. The Catholic interpretation of the Bible teaches that only the Catholic church may interpret the Bible properly.
2. The Catholic church teaches that the Catholic church possesses the teaching of the Apostles.

In either case the Church’s authority is used to prove the Church’s authority. Which seems like circular reasoning to me.

Perhaps you could propose a different way of looking at it?

I’ve received a couple of responses which I’m going to copy here to reply to, but first a couple of points:

1. Replies saying “Jesus founded the Catholic church” will be treated as if you’d said “the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus founded the Catholic Church”. Begging the question isn’t helpful in a discussion. There are Mormons, Orthodox, Anglicans, Baptists and others who all have their particular belief that “Jesus founded my church”. If you aren’t willing to offer proof of assertions and only want to makes claims, this probably isn’t the thread for you.
2. Comments, suggestions or even vague allusions to my inquiry putting my soul at risk or indicating something less than good about my soul will be reported to the moderators. I’d like a civil discussion, please.

Now as I wrote above-the Catholic claim to authority seems to me to take 2 forms:

1. The Catholic interpretation of the Bible teaches that only the Catholic church may interpret the Bible properly.
2. The Catholic church teaches that only the Catholic church possesses the full teaching of the Apostles. (slight precision after sleep )

Do you think one of these is valid for some reason? Do you not consider this to be circular reasoning? Do you propose another construction? (syllogistic form please-it’s appreciated if you add evidence, just provide a clear statement to consider)

Thanks in advance to those who choose to participate.

 

[Non_Serviam]

A reply that I received-well written, but difficult to summarize a statement about the source of church authority

The Church has never formed her doctrines by first referring to the scriptures and interpreting them. The scriptures have always been appealed to after the Spirit of truth has spoken what he hears to the Apostolic teaching authority (Jn 16:12-13). Matthew, for instance, preached about the Virgin Birth before he wrote his narrative. And he did not intuit this truth by first gleaning the texts of the prophet Isaiah and interpreting them (cf. Isa 7:14). He found scriptural confirmation of his faith in the Old Testament and appealed to Isaiah to try to convince the Jews in Palestine that what he believed in and preached was true. To this day the Jews reject Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah and the Apostolic teaching authority of the one universal Church. It was by the grace of God that Peter had professed his belief in Christ’s divinity. He did not have to initially consult the Scriptures to perceive this fundamental divine truth of our faith.Thus the Church has always recognized herself to be the medium of the fullness of divine revelation and the teaching authority guided by the Paraclete since the time before the New Testament was written and compiled by the late first century (1 Tim 3:15).

Sacred Scripture must reflect the doctrines established through the medium of Sacred Tradition and defined by the Magisterium. Scripture is materially sufficient, but formally insufficient. The former must be interpreted in light of the latter from which it has sprung. The reason why the Protestant tradition is seriously divided is because it is severed from the historic Christian faith and has rejected the notion of a central Apostolic teaching authority of the Church: The Bible alone is the final rule of faith and arbiter of the divine truth. But in reality individual Protestant religious leaders have usurped the valid body of Apostolic teaching authority by appointing themselves as the arbiters of divine revelation, relying purely on their own fallible rationalizations and interpretations of the written word outside the bounds of the Sacred Tradition of the historic Christain faith which originates from the teaching authority of Jesus and, through him, the Apostles and their validly appointed successors by the “laying on of hands”.

Jesus established his one universal Church and founded her on Peter and the Apostles with the intention of guiding the Church to all truth in a single unity of faith until the end of this age. The Scriptures do not explicitly reveal by definition the Holy Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. For this reason a score of Trinitarian and Christological heresies have sprouted in the history of the Church. One cannot honestly accept the Church’s pronouncements on these truths while at the same time reject her Apostolic teaching authority with regard to the Marian doctrines. One who does is simply picking and choosing what he wishes to believe, reading the written word in hindsight bias. Protestantism is all about what individual religious leaders and believers wish to selectively believe and confess according to their own fallible interpretations of the Scriptures. Their human traditions originate soley from the private interpretations of Scripture independent of the agency of the Holy Spirit who works through the central Apostolic teaching authority of the one universal Church established by Christ - not by Martin Luther, Jean Calvin, or John Smith, (etc.). The tragic result is the institution of countless denominations and splintering within them.

“…Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopacy. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those ministers already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…”
*Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98) *

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth…proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things…ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom [Sacred Tradition], and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.”
*Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5, 20:2 (A.D. 180) *

" Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
*Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2 (c.A.D. 110) *

PAX :harp:

It appears to be saying the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church is the only source of full Apostolic teaching (see coloured portions)

The ECF quotes aren’t prophecy-pointing to something almost 2000 years later and saying their descriptions apply when others make claim to those same descriptions makes it a point under discussion, not a proof.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi

I agree with you that it would be a circular reasoning, in my opinion.

When Jesus left for India after the incident of crucifixion he did not leave anything written by him or dictated by him with anybody. Jesus also authorized none to write on his behalf.

When Saint Thomas went to Kerala, India; he did not have any NTBible with him. If he could do without NTBible in Kerala that shows that NTBible was not all that essential. This is my opinion; others could differ with me with reasons.

Thanks

 

[Non_Serviam]

The other thoughtful response I received:

Really? You think that is circular reasoning? Perhaps to a materialist who is asking for proof that they Bible is “true”.

In this case, we are addressing authoritative claims to the correct interpretation of Scripture. A Protestant has no basis to make any. Their arguments will always rest on the premise, “I think this is what the Bible says.” Therefore, their premise is circular. A Catholic will interpret Scripture, and when challenged, point to the teaching authority and historical record of the Church. It will be considered infallible because it has been preserved by Christ.

So, far from being “circular reasoning”, the Catholic intepretation of Scripture is based on religious authority.

You may certainly choose to reject it, and say, “well, why should I believe you”, but there is no circular reasoning involved. The reasoning of authority ends with the claim of authority and the succession of authority back to the time of Christ.

That is not enough for a materialist or an agnostic, but it is what a Catholic places their faith in. The Protestant would say, “my claim of authority rests with the Bible”, but once again, if the meaning is not apparent then it it doesn’t rest with the Bible. It rests with Biblical interpretation.

I don’t believe a materialist (which I’m not) can be told there are no answers for him or her.

It’s also important to not that the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church “will be considered infallible because it has been preserved by Christ.”

As well “we are addressing authoritative claims to the correct interpretation of Scripture. A Protestant has no basis to make any.” This claim to authority is made based on “teaching authority and historical record of the Church.”

In other words the Church teaches that it has teaching authority and uses that authority to “prove” it. It also teaches that it is the only one who can interpret Scripture and then uses its Scriptural interpretations to prove that.

“So, far from being “circular reasoning”, the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is based on religious authority.”

Agreed the Catholic Church says it is the authority and uses it’s authority to “prove” it. Instead of the charge made against the Protestant “I think this is what the Bible says.” we are told to accept “This is what the Church thinks the Bible says” because the Church tells us that it is the infallible interpreter.

To paraphrase the old children’s song

“The Catholic church is right, this I know, because the Catholic Church tells me so.”

or as the original writer put it:

“The reasoning of authority ends with the claim of authority”

Still not enough proof for a materialist or me.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

When I converted it was explained to me as being spiral instead of circular.

This was how it was basically explained to me:

1. The Bible can be shown to be historically accurate.
2. The Bible states that Jesus established one visible Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth. You do not believe it is the Catholic Church, but you wanted a Catholic explanation so there you go.
3. The Church, based off the historically reliable Scriptures which promises the protection from the Holy Spirit from teaching errors of faith, can then pronounce the Bible to be not just historically accurate but inerrant and authoritative (not the final authority but authoritative).
4. The Church then is the, “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15

I could see how Protestantism could be seen as being circular as well, You believe that the Bible is authoritative because… the bible says so.

God bless

 

[Non_Serviam]

When I converted it was explained to me as being spiral instead of circular.

This was how it was basically explained to me:

1. The Bible can be shown to be historically accurate.
2. The Bible states that Jesus established one visible Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth. You do not believe it is the Catholic Church, but you wanted a Catholic explanation so there you go.
3. The Church, based off the historically reliable Scriptures which promises the protection from the Holy Spirit from teaching errors of faith, can then pronounce the Bible to be not just historically accurate but inerrant and authoritative (not the final authority but authoritative).
4. The Church then is the, “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15

I could see how Protestantism could be seen as being circular as well, You believe that the Bible is authoritative because… the bible says so.

God bless

Thank you-this is an interesting approach.

A Protestant or other churchgoer could use it as well, filling in slightly different beliefs in steps 2 and 3, but it is a promising approach. You make a good point about Protestants who use the Bible to prove the Bible. I prefer F.F. Bruce’s approach.

What I’ve found frustrating is people who will use Matthew to prove Papal Authority and then use Papal authority to prove their interpretation of Matthew.

The approach you suggest is open to discussion and analysis of the scriptural texts at step 2 as well as historical verification that the church of that time and the current Catholic church line up in belief and practice, just as the Bible can be historically verified. It seems very much like my current approach.

Assuming that everything did line up, one could proceed through the other steps quite quickly.

Again, thanks for the new approach.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

A Protestant or other churchgoer could use it as well, filling in slightly different beliefs in steps 2 and 3, but it is a promising approach. You make a good point about Protestants who use the Bible to prove the Bible. I prefer F.F. Bruce’s approach.

Perhaps, but I am not aware of too many Protestant Churches which make the claims of the Catholic Church. Maybe the Anglicans, but I believe (correct me if I am wrong) they see themselves as part of the one visible Catholic church and not *the *Church. Now the Orthodox could have a hope and a prayer

Here is an article that probably explains it far better than I did:

catholic.com/library/proving_inspiration.asp

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

I am not sure how charitable this link will sound, but keep in mind I did not write it. I share it only because I think it better represents what I was trying to say.

What I’ve found frustrating is people who will use Matthew to prove Papal Authority and then use Papal authority to prove their interpretation of Matthew.

I think this verse comes up a lot because we are demanded to show, using scripture, where we get our beliefs that we have about the Church.

God bless

 

[Non_Serviam]

Perhaps, but I am not aware of too many Protestant Churches which make the claims of the Catholic Church. Maybe the Anglicans, but I believe (correct me if I am wrong) they see themselves as part of the one visible Catholic church and not *the *Church. Now the Orthodox could have a hope and a prayer

Here is an article that probably explains it far better than I did:

catholic.com/library/proving_inspiration.asp

I am not sure how charitable this link will sound, but keep in mind I did not write it. I share it only because I think it better represents what I was trying to say.

I think this verse comes up a lot because we are demanded to show, using scripture, where we get our beliefs that we have about the Church.

God bless

If Protestants were to do that, they would likely pick aspects of the NT church that were akin to their specific aspects (i.e. a Pentecostal church would point out that people in Acts spoke in tongues). It would still require a period of assessment, as I stated before to see if the claimant fulfills the requirements of all the relevant texts.

Your explanation was more than sufficient, thanks. I did take the time to read the link and it confirms what you’ve said-although it jumps to the conclusion that the Bible teaches that the church being preserved from fatal error will have it done so in the way the Catholic church claims. That would be part of the exploration and analysis for me.

As for the verses in Matthew, I agree that Catholics should offer them as evidence of why they believe Papal authority to be correct. It when some dismiss other interpretations as automatically wrong that discussion becomes impossible. Fortunately not everyone does this.

Thanks again for your contribution.

 

[ncgolf]

I do not think the early Christians had a doubt to the truth of teaching they were receiving … and without a Bible … the way Jews first converted and later the Gentiles began to convert was from an oral tradition … something the Jews were well aware of … the teachers spoke and read from the Torah.

The apostles had the authority given by Christ … the difficulty being Jesus did not write it down and sign it … so the record is oral that indeed this happened. With the writing of the Gospels … this seemed to become the standard against which every claim is measured … the oral tradition and apostolic teaching taking a percebtable back seat to this new written form.

That is why the confusion exists between those who people only what is on paper with the Catholic belief that the Magesterium, Canon, and Tradition given the full extent of Jesus’ teaching. The authority that was given the Early Church, we believe, still exists.

Anyway my 2 cents.

 

[NDfan]

When I converted it was explained to me as being spiral instead of circular.

This was how it was basically explained to me:

1. The Bible can be shown to be historically accurate.
2. The Bible states that Jesus established one visible Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against and that the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth. You do not believe it is the Catholic Church, but you wanted a Catholic explanation so there you go.

It has to be some church though doesn’t it? If we look into church history the initial body of believers were not called Catholic. They were called Christians. This is the issue I had with the church when I was part of it. I called myself Catholic when the word Catholic is an adjective taken from the Greek word katholicos meaning universal.

The initial church fathers called themselves Christian because they followed Christ. The beliefs of the church were called orthodox beliefs because they were seen as the traditional, accepted, and essential beliefs of Christianity. Such as those expressed in the Apostles Creed. And finally the church was described as being catholic. Meaning it was universal. There were no boundaries of race, sex, age, gender etc. etc.

So I don’t see the initial church as having a label because Christ did not give it a label. HE said HE was building a church. Actually the word ekklesia is what is used in scripture meaning a gathering of citizens out of their homes into a public place, an assembly. From a Christian sense ekklesia would then be a gathering of people who are followers of Christ. The only thing Christ said of HIS ekklesia is that the gates of hell would not prevail. Meaning if you committed yourself to Christ your ultimate destiny would not be hell. Believe and have eternal life right??

In looking at church history the Christian church following orthodox beliefs started to separate itself from those that were considered heretical. But how did the Christian church know it was right and the heretics were wrong? The answer is scripture. All church fathers appealed to scripture in defense of the faith. Ignatius pushed hard for an official canon to refute the gnostics and more specifically the terrible work that Marcion was doing. Given the Apostles were all dead the only thing they had from them was their writings. You can argue they had some oral teachings but sorry we can’t play the he said she said game. We have to be able to benchmark those oral teachings against something to know if that individual is speaking the truth. Otherwise polycarp could say hey this is what John the Apostle told me. That benchmark can only be scripture. It’s only when we see the church having internal struggles that ultimately resulted in the schisms that the label game started. Catholic, Orthodox. Then Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed. Now the list is endless. But the schisms all resulted not as a result of rejecting Christ. But more of the intricacies of some doctrines the church developed over time. Who’s right and who’s wrong??

1. The Church, based off the historically reliable Scriptures which promises the protection from the Holy Spirit from teaching errors of faith, can then pronounce the Bible to be not just historically accurate but inerrant and authoritative (not the final authority but authoritative).

Ok so if the Bible is not the final authority who is?? You say the Bible says the church is protected from teaching error. But then say it’s not the final authority. So can’t you see how this argument obviously fails? You can only claim authority from something that is ultimately the final authority. You can’t claim final authority from something that is not the final authority. In this case the church is announcing itself as the final authority because scripture **which is not the final authority **says so.

Please show me in scripture where it states the church is protected from errors in teaching.

1. The Church then is the, “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15

I could see how Protestantism could be seen as being circular as well, You believe that the Bible is authoritative because… the bible says so.

God bless

And you believe the Catholic church is the final authority because scripture says so. The argument is no different. Something has to be the final authority. If scripture says the church contains the truth then scripture has to be the final authority. Otherwise someone could call into question what final authority was used to determine the church was the final authority. If the church is the final authority you can’t say it comes from scripture which is not the final authority. It then has to be something else. What is it then??

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Ignatius pushed hard for an official canon to refute the gnostics and more specifically the terrible work that Marcion was doing.

And who decided on the Canon? Was it the Bible? This is going to turn into a discussion on Sola Scriptura which I am sure the OP did not want it to go.

You want the Bible to be the final authority but yet that final authority needed a Church to decide what was even the canon.

What do you accept as the canon and why? By what authority?

Ok so if the Bible is not the final authority who is??

Christ is the final authority. Christ founded a Church.

You say the Bible says the church is protected from teaching error. But then say it’s not the final authority. So can’t you see how this argument obviously fails?

No, you are not following. The Scriptures can be shown to be historically accurate. The Scriptures state that Christ established one visible Church which would be the pillar and bulwark of the truth and would be led to all truth. If you want to debate whether or not this Church is the Catholic church, fine, but the reasoning does not fail just because you do not believe it is the Catholic Church.

The Bible is God’s inerrant written word, Inspired and trustworthy, but none of this makes it the final authority.

Please show me in scripture where it states the church is protected from errors in teaching.

Well does not Christ promise that the HS would lead the Apostles to all truth? Does not Christ promise Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church?

I know these things are not going to persuade you, but ask your self, how well could His church be the pillar and bulwark of the truth if it was able to teach error?

God bless

 

[Angels_Unaware]

The other thoughtful response I received:I don’t believe a materialist (which I’m not) can be told there are no answers for him or her.

On what question? From the perspective of reason, we can say 1) Christ demonstrated miracles as a sign that He was messiah. 2) Christ was put to death for the signs, 3) Christ rose from the dead, Conclusion A: Christ is Messiah. 4) Christ gave authority to the apostles after His ressurection, 5) approximately 334 years passed and the faith was passed from authority to authority, 6) The canon was closed. Conclusion B: Truth is primarily contained in the TEACHER, and those truths are written down in our canon. The final authority is the PERSON, reflecting how the Word became flesh.

Now, obviously, a materialist is not going to accept the above. They will argue that the written record is corrupt, that it has internal contradictions, and there was not a video recorder there, that Christianity is a socio-political movement, so what is the use of using this argument with them?

A Fundamentalist is actually more vulnerable to the attacks of a materialist because when they are shown internal conflicts in the gospel, or something that is called an internal conflict, they either refuse to accept the arguments or they lose all faith. They work from the assumption that the Bible came down from heaven on a golden platter, and cannot understand that Truth is primarily a Person, and transmitted in flesh and blood, and that our written records were not meant to be worshipped.

Yes, religous authority is based on religous authority. It is based on us believing Paul when he wrote that Christ appeared to him. It is based on obeying Paul when he told us to obey the teachers.

How exactly do you think you are getting around that? You aren’t if you are going to remain a Christian. There are also secular authorities we end up just believing, too. In ancient history, for example, we have no choice but to accept the word of the historian. The testimonies are accepted on authority, which is established by credibility.

 

[Eucharisted]

This is what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about biblical intepretation (taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church):

III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

---

75 Cf. DV 12 # 1.
76 DV 12 # 2.
77 DV 12 # 3.
78 Cf. DV 12 # 4.
79 Cf. ⇒ Lk 24:25-27, ⇒ 44-46
80 St. Thomas Aquinas, Expos. in ⇒ Ps. 21, ⇒ 11; cf. ⇒ Ps 22:14.
81 Origen, Hom. in ⇒ Lev. 5, 5: PG 12, 454D.
82 Cf. ⇒ Rom 12:6.
83 St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th I, 1, 10, ad I.
84 Cf. I Cor 10:2.
85 I Cor 10:11; cf. ⇒ Heb 3:1 - ⇒ 4:11.
86 Cf. ⇒ Rev 21:1 - ⇒ 22:5.
87 Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.
88 DV 12 # 3.
89 St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176.

 

[NDfan]

And who decided on the Canon? Was it the Bible? This is going to turn into a discussion on Sola Scriptura which I am sure the OP did not want it to go.

Roman had to be 2 posts. Sorry

No I don’t prefer that either. Actually the canon was more received than anything. The church admits that. It’s not like the councils sat down and said Hmm what works should make up the bible and then voila we were given the bible to read.

You want the Bible to be the final authority but yet that final authority needed a Church to decide what was even the canon.

Not true. To make this statement shows you don’t understand how the canon was established. This is a typical argument Roman Catholics will make to try and justify the ultimate authority of the church over the bible. Yet the RCC will turn right around and dip into that scripture to garner ultimate authority.

What do you accept as the canon and why? By what authority?

I accept the canon as it is now because I believe the Holy Spirit guided the church in receiving the final canon.

Christ is the final authority. Christ founded a Church.

Yes and the beliefs of the church are found in scripture.

No, you are not following. The Scriptures can be shown to be historically accurate.

Yes I am following. What I’m saying is your argument doesn’t hold up. There’s a huge difference between stating something is historically accurate vs stating is has authority. The Bible is not considered to be a history book.

The word Bible capitalized means the collection of OT and NT works. But the word bible lower case means the following - a publication that is preeminent especially in authoritativeness or wide readership.

So for instance I used to work at Johns Hopkins. A surgeon that is retired now has written books on his surgical practices. Specifically he specialized in one particular area. His writings in this area are considered to be the** “bible” **of surgical techniques for a specific type of cancer. They are widely accepted all over the world as the ultimate authority on pancreatic cancer and his techniques outlined in the texts are taught in operating rooms also all over the world. Now when he dies what do you think will be considered the final authority on his techniques in this area?

The collection of works that we now know as the Bible are the bible of Christianity and Judaism. Meaning the works are considered preeminent and authoritative and have wide readership for these 2 religions.

What you are proposing is that we only reference the Bible as historically accurate so we can make a case for the church as being the final authority. If that’s the case then why do we reference it for teachings on Christ? Because it’s historically accurate? No. Because it’s authoritative. So again we’re left with which is the final authority, the church or scripture?

Paul tells us in Timothy to remember everything we are taught implying oral teachings. But then immediately follows that by saying don’t forget who you learned it from and that from childhood you have been acquainted with sacred writings which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ.

Then follows that by saying that all scripture is breathed out by GOD and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness.

So Paul admits that scripture comes from GOD who we both would agree is the final authority on everything. Unless you think the church is over GOD. Since according to you scripture is historically accurate then we have no reason to believe Paul didn’t say this. If Paul did say this then how much authority do you give him?? How about Jesus who we know had the highest regard for scripture and often referred to them for teaching. Do you see where this is going? Ultimately something has to be held as the final authority. That is scripture.

 

[NDfan]

If you want to debate whether or not this Church is the Catholic church, fine, but the reasoning does not fail just because you do not believe it is the Catholic Church.

Contd from above

And I didn’t say it did. I’m not arguing that some form of the Roman Catholic/Orthodox Church is where we trace our roots. The question is where does the authority reside? The ultimate authority resides in scripture and it has to. From scripture as the final authority we see the church has the power of binding and loosing when it comes to sin. The chuch can also pronounce forgiveness on behalf of Christ because scripture again as the final authority tells us so. A history book cannot be considered authoritative on matters of spiritual doctrine. That’s why your argument fails.

As the final authority scripture empowers the church. Without scripture we know nothing of what Christ taught. But the church cannot contradict scripture. If the church is the final authority then scripture becomes secondary. If that’s the case the church loses it’s power because it is derived from scripture. The ultimate question would then be does the authority scripture gives to the church reside only in the Roman Catholic/Orthodox churches? Or does scripture give authority to all Christian churches?

The Bible is God’s inerrant written word, Inspired and trustworthy, but none of this makes it the final authority.

What??? Roman are you even trying to say that GOD is not the final authority?? Yikes.

Well does not Christ promise that the HS would lead the Apostles to all truth? Does not Christ promise Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church?

Absolutely 100% agree. Although I don’t believe Christ was referring to just the Apostles. At this point Christ already established HE was building a church. Being led into the truth is promised to the church of which the Apostles are part of the foundation. We all receive the Holy Spirit upon baptism so technically this applies to us all. And I believe I am led into the truth all the time. In my daily living if I follow Christ the things I do will be truthful to HIS ways.

But this does not translate into being an infallibe teacher. Paul himself was a mess when he first started evangelizing Christ. Look at the mistakes Peter made. He denied Christ. He was eating with the gentiles and backed away out of fear when the circumcision party came. So we can’t assume being led into the truth empowers someone to teach infallibly nor does it mean you can create new teachings that are not found in scripture.

I know these things are not going to persuade you, but ask your self, how well could His church be the pillar and bulwark of the truth if it was able to teach error?

Good question. But keep in mind the church is the body of Christ. Christ followers are HIS church. So technically we’re all responsible for the truth. Not just 1 man or 1 group of people. We’re also told to be discerning because the church will have false teachers in it. Wolves in sheeps clothing. Christ never announced protection for one part of HIS church or that the protection was isolated to any leadership. We see that nowhere in scripture.

Blessings

 

[Angels_Unaware]

… So again we’re left with which is the final authority, the church or scripture?

Paul tells us in Timothy to remember everything we are taught implying oral teachings. But then immediately follows that by saying don’t forget who you learned it from and that from childhood you have been acquainted with sacred writings which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ.

Then follows that by saying that all scripture is breathed out by GOD and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness.

So Paul admits that scripture comes from GOD who we both would agree is the final authority on everything. Unless you think the church is over GOD.

Your argument falls apart here. Yes, God is the final authority. Nobody has ever argued that the Church is “above God”.

In your point just above, when you quote Timothy, all you do is prove the Catholic position- which is that Revelation is contained in both Teaching and Scripture and that neither is authoritative over the other.

That Catholic position is derived from the Bible verses you reference. You seem to think that Catholics believe tradition trumps Scripture.

Since according to you scripture is historically accurate then we have no reason to believe Paul didn’t say this. If Paul did say this then how much authority do you give him?? How about Jesus who we know had the highest regard for scripture and often referred to them for teaching. Do you see where this is going? Ultimately something has to be held as the final authority. That is scripture.

The only point you’ve made is that Scripture is authoritative. It is. The Catholic Church takes the position that Sacred Tradition and Scripture will never be in conflict and neither is preeminent.

Contd from above

And I didn’t say it did. I’m not arguing that some form of the Roman Catholic/Orthodox Church is where we trace our roots. The question is where does the authority reside? The ultimate authority resides in scripture and it has to.

Actually, the conclusion is the opposite. It CANNOT be SOLEY Scripture, it MUST be both Sacred Teaching and Sacred Scripture, because we derive our writings from our teachers.

The Scriptures were not written in automatic handwriting and the Canon was not written as the Ten Commandments were, by the hand of God in stone. Why do you think that is? Have you ever considered that question?

Can we have a fallible collection of infallibe documents? This was the question Scott Hahn posed to a Protestant scholar.

Reason tells us we cannot. We either have a fallible collection of fallible documents or we have an infallible collection of infallible documents.

 

[NDfan]

Your argument falls apart here. Yes, God is the final authority. Nobody has ever argued that the Church is “above God”.

In your point just above, when you quote Timothy, all you do is prove the Catholic position- which is that Revelation is contained in both Teaching and Scripture and that neither is authoritative over the other.

Not true Angels. Paul never says oral tradition can correct any teachings. He gives this power only to scripture. Otherwise how do you validate oral revelation? Against what?? I say GOD appeared to me and said we need to eat doughnuts everyday in order to go to Heaven. How do you validate that? Answer: You can’t. That’s why your argument falls apart. You can never prove oral revelation because Christ nor HIS Apostles are here to validate.

That Catholic position is derived from the Bible verses you reference. You seem to think that Catholics believe tradition trumps Scripture.
The only point you’ve made is that Scripture is authoritative. It is. The Catholic Church takes the position that Sacred Tradition and Scripture will never be in conflict and neither is preeminent.

And your missing the point of my conversation with brother Roman. His assertion is that the church is the ultimate authority. It’s not. Scripture is. Period. You have to validate against something. The church is subject to the teachings of scripture since it is scripture that the church derives it’s power from. Without scripture the church cannot forgive sin. Without scripture the church cannot bind and loose.

The question will still remain does this power reside only in the Roman Catholic church??

Actually, the conclusion is the opposite. It CANNOT be SOLEY Scripture, it MUST be both Sacred Teaching and Sacred Scripture, because we derive our writings from our teachers.

But the teachers are no longer alive. So what’s left?? Their writings!!!

The Scriptures were not written in automatic handwriting and the Canon was not written as the Ten Commandments were, by the hand of God in stone. Why do you think that is? Have you ever considered that question?

Yes so what’s your point? Scripture does not have to be fingered by GOD to come from GOD. As Paul states and I quote:

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God [2] may be competent, equipped for every good work.

How do you reconcile that?? The works of the Prophets in the OT were not fingered by GOD yet no prophet ever claims to speak from HIS own authority.

Can we have a fallible collection of infallibe documents? This was the question Scott Hahn posed to a Protestant scholar.

Yes we can. Why?? Because the fallible list may not contain all infallible writings period. You don’t realize that this statement completely destroys many of your doctrines. Why?? Because if you claim the list is infallible then that means you have a complete list of all infallible works. Meaning the works that fall outside this list are fallible. This includes the Infancy Gospel of James which is commonly used to argue for Mary’s perpetual virginity. You just crushed any belief that is derived outside of the official canon. Do we need to start listing them now??

Reason tells us we cannot. We either have a fallible collection of fallible documents or we have an infallible collection of infallible documents.

Wrong. Humans are fallible. So we may have missed an infallible writing. It’s not one or the other as you listed. That’s a ridiculous statement. Maybe you should try listening to RC Sproul’s explanation of this instead of Scott Hahn’s.

PEACE

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Without scripture the church cannot forgive sin. Without scripture the church cannot bind and loose.

The church was forgiving sins long before the scripture passage you refer to was written down.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Not true Angels. Paul never says oral tradition can correct any teachings. He gives this power only to scripture. Otherwise how do you validate oral revelation? Against what?? I say GOD appeared to me and said we need to eat doughnuts everyday in order to go to Heaven. How do you validate that? Answer: You can’t. That’s why your argument falls apart. You can never prove oral revelation because Christ nor HIS Apostles are here to validate.

What? You are reading, way way more Scripture than what is there. You show me where Paul gives the power to correct Sacred Teachings of the Apostles with Scripture. Not “any” teaching. It certainly is not in 2 Timothy.

2 Timothy 3:15 discusses the “sacred writings you have been familiar with since childhood.” The Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3:16, All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Where does that say Scripture corrects Oral Teachings of the Apostles? It says correction. Correction of behavior, heresy, etc. The Apostles put into writing some of their corrections and teachings, and others they spoke. Neither contradicted each other.

And WHAT does it refer to? The Old Testament. No, my argument has not fallen apart.

And your missing the point of my conversation with brother Roman. His assertion is that the church is the ultimate authority. It’s not. Scripture is. Period.

Where did he say that? I must have missed it. I didn’t read that he said that Tradition trumps Scripture. The Church is the container of BOTH types of teaching. If he actually did say that, then he would have been speaking something that is not Catholic doctrine (but I don’t think he meant that)

You have to validate against something. The church is subject to the teachings of scripture since it is scripture that the church derives it’s power from. Without scripture the church cannot forgive sin. Without scripture the church cannot bind and loose.The question will still remain does this power reside only in the Roman Catholic church??But the teachers are no longer alive. So what’s left?? Their writings!!!

You really don’t seem to understand how the Church works at all, having read these comments here. The Church contains both Sacred Teaching, passed down from the Traditions of the Apostles and the ECFs, and Sacred Scripture. The Church is made up of people. They are not dead. The Church is alive, and is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That last word, Apostolic, means that the anointing of the Holy Spirit and the authority to teach has been passed down from Jesus. Sacred Teaching and Sacred Scripture do not contradict each other. We do not make Scripture a vice that abolishes every concept, such as the Immaculate Conception, that is not stated in Paul’s writings explicitly, *but is apparent from study in implicitly. *

Yes we can. Why?? Because the fallible list may not contain all infallible writings period. You don’t realize that this statement completely destroys many of your doctrines. Why?? Because if you claim the list is infallible then that means you have a complete list of all infallible works.

No, dear heart. The LIST REFERS TO THE CANON, determined by the Council. Which is Scripture. Tradition is not part of the list, so is not affected by the canon, and is not invalidated by it.

Meaning the works that fall outside this list are fallible. This includes the Infancy Gospel of James which is commonly used to argue for Mary’s perpetual virginity. You just crushed any belief that is derived outside of the official canon. Do we need to start listing them now?? Wrong. Humans are fallible. So we may have missed an infallible writing. It’s not one or the other as you listed. That’s a ridiculous statement. Maybe you should try listening to RC Sproul’s explanation of this instead of Scott Hahn’s.PEACE

No, actually this is ridiculous. Did you really say that? We might have missed an infallible writing?

Well, then we don’t have a canon, and we might as well become Mormons.

No, it as I said. We either have an infallible canon of infallible books or a fallible canon of fallible books.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

And your missing the point of my conversation with brother Roman. His assertion is that the church is the ultimate authority. It’s not. Scripture is. Period.

Apparently you missed the point of our conversation:

Christ is the final authority. Christ founded a Church.

You even quoted this statement of mine.