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

[Non_Serviam]

:tiphat: :clapping:

I wonder?

Is this too logical to believed? NOT! Great post, thanks.

If things are simple and clear for you PJM, then perhaps you like to explain the apparent contradictions between Boniface’s Unum Sanctam and the Catechism of the Catholic Church that I pointed out in my last post.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Fair enough-thank you for taking the time to share this.

It’s an interesting analogy you put forward. A teacher lines up with Jesus’ command to the Apostles to teach those who come after, so we are in agreement here.

It’s that “nature of authority” point where we differ. If a student made such claims, there are two approaches the teacher could take:

1. The teacher could say “I am the teacher-I have the authority to say what is correct in this class and I say that’s wrong”
2. The teacher could show that their teaching is supported by evidence and proof and that their authority is to communicate this information and to support and assist the learners in acquiring and using the knowledge. The teacher doesn’t claim to validate the knowledge, but rather to communicate it.

The quotes I posted previously look a lot more like #1 to me than #2, although there would be elements of #2 displayed in pastoral activity.

#1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive. We have gone over authority many times, but I still see you (in other quotes) saying that the Catholic claim of authority is substantiated in the person making the claim. This has been said many times, but it seems to still be getting lost. The claim of authority goes back to Jesus. You can’t forget that.

I think part of what might be happening with you is that you aren’t seeing this in its multi-dimensional form. You are comparing this in your mind to secular claims of authority. It seem as if what you are thinking is, (to use another analogy) well, a Supreme Court Justice might have the authority decide a case, but their decision might be incongruent with the body of written law, therefore they cannot be considered the final authority, the real meaning of the written law is the final authority. And you’re correct in that reasoning, but there is another dimension to what we are discussing with the Magisterium.

There is another aspect of this that ties in conceptually with the sacraments. After Jesus’ resurrection in John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus didn’t just say, “hey buddy, you are in charge”, he gave an anointing to the apostles to exercise His authority, since the power to remit and retain sins is God’s alone.

This is important because it represents the principle that the Church acts for God on earth. It acts in dispensing grace through the sacraments, and it acts in speaking infallibly when given the directive by the Holy Spirity to speak infallibly.

Going back to the analogy of the Supreme Court Justice, we can agree that no judge can ever render a decision infallilbly, since the law is man’s law, which is never infallible, and the Justice acts always as a man. In the Church, we have another dimension, and that is that the Church is the real oracle of God.

If you think about where infallibility comes from, we have a progressive revelation of where it comes. First it came from burning bushes and was entirely physically separate from man in the Ark of the Covenant. Then, it comes in the form of Man, in Jesus Christ. Following Jesus Christ, infallbility came to us through the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit. It comes to us in union with man.

Think about what the NT is. The gospels are witnesses to Christ. Christ never wrote anything. The epistles were written as letters, and they were produced not as a means to document all truth, but were produced secondary to the action of the apostles in leading the Church. I mean, think about how significant that is. What are the epistles? Letters, written to Churches, as apostles exercizing their authority, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to teach and lead the sheep. What evidence do we have that this model should ever have changed? In this model, infallibility sprung out of the Church. That is always where God acts and speaks infallibly today. In people, through the Church.

This is also the reason why the Catholic Church continues to be the primary authority on exorcisms. One of the great errors of Protestantism was the impetus to divorce the Church from physical representation on earth, and create the idea that the things of God are only apprehended in the abstract. The idea that sacramentals are “superstitous” comes from the very same idea that the Church does not speak infallibly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the same issue; the abstraction of God.

For me, saying the Magisterium are the only people who can “authentically interpret” the Scriptures undercuts the use of Reason by others to understand them. (Reason being inductive or deductive investigation and interpretation of the Scriptures in this example)

While under such a system people can study and memorize and reflect on Scripture in a devotional way-it seems that any sort of inductive or deductive exploration of them would be invalidated.

This is just false. I really don’t know what else to say. I don’t even understand where you get this idea, given the great richness that comes out of Catholic theological work.

I mean- this is nothing but a prejudice you have. It is just untrue.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think Eucharisted presented the cleanest argument so far. It presents the best and worst of the issue.

Authoriy, as I’m sure you’re aware, is given to someone or somethig by someone with greater authority. …Now, since authority must come from something, the Church’s authority must come from something. If the Church claims its authority comes from itself - that is, that the authority of the Church proves the authority of the Church - then it would be claiming its authority is self-existent, and that would be quite a laughable claim to be making.

This would be silly, indeed. Who would believe such a claim of authority?

The question is than: where did the Church get her authoriy? The answer: Jesus Christ, the God-Man. Since God alone is the Lord, He alone could make covenants with nations and peoples, so Jesus, in founding His Church, had to be God, or else the Church has no Divine Authority.

So the essential claim is that the CC got its authority from Jesus. What is the evidence for this claim? It is the CC interpretation of scriptures created and produced by the CC. And what of those who might interpret such scriptures differently? Well, the CC claims sole authority to interpret the scriptures that it created so that is not allowed.

So we are back to the very circularity that you dimissed originally. The only difference is that Jesus is invoked in a level of indirection in the circularity.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I think Eucharisted presented the cleanest argument so far. It presents the best and worst of the issue…

You’ve obviously not read the entire thread. That argument has been presented from the very beginning and discussed in many forms for a month now.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You’ve obviously not read the entire thread. That argument has been presented from the very beginning and discussed in many forms for a month now.

Yes, I noticed that you’ve been going in circles on this for about a month.

If the authoritarians would simply admit that they are relying on faith in the authority of the CC, I think that would end the discussion.

I noted elsewhere that Catholic Faith is exactly faith in the authority of the CC. It is both necessary and sufficient.

So, at the root, this is one of those faith vs. reason debates that go nowhere.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Yes, I noticed that you’ve been going in circles on this for about a month.

If the authoritarians would simply admit that they are relying on faith in the authority of the CC, I think that would end the discussion.

I noted elsewhere that Catholic Faith is exactly faith in the authority of the CC. It is both necessary and sufficient.

So, at the root, this is one of those faith vs. reason debates that go nowhere.

Well, all Christians are relying on faith that their faith has been passed down to them infallibly. Protestants rely on faith that the Bible is infallible. Their faith goes back to the resurrection of Jesus, just like ours. The only difference is that Catholics point out that the Scriptures were written secondarily to the witness of Jesus Christ and the action of the Church (as I said in more detail above), and that Scriptures are declared infallible by the Church, so we cannot have an infallible Scripture by faith unless we have an infallible Church by faith.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well, all Christians are relying on faith that their faith has been passed down to them infallibly.

Sorry, no. (Unless you mean to define “Christian” as one who accepts infallibility.)

Protestants rely on faith that the Bible is infallible.

True, generally speaking, Protestants believe that the Bible is infallibly correct (setting aside for the moment what that means).

Their faith goes back to the resurrection of Jesus, just like ours. The only difference is that Catholics point out that the Scriptures were written secondarily to the witness of Jesus Christ and the action of the Church (as I said in more detail above), and that Scriptures are declared infallible by the Church, so we cannot have an infallible Scripture by faith unless we have an infallible Church by faith.

True. But you have not exausted the possibilities here.

You are assuming that there must be accessible, infallible truth somewhere and that it is merely a debate between Catholics and Protestants whether to have faith in the authority of the CC or in the Bible directly.

But obviously one can be a Christian, i.e. a follower of Christ, without believing that either the CC or the Bible is infallible.

So it is incorrect to claim that all Christians must rely “on faith that their faith has been passed down to them infallibly.”

 

[Angels_Unaware]

You are assuming that there must be accessible, infallible truth somewhere and that it is merely a debate between Catholics and Protestants whether to have faith in the authority of the CC or in the Bible directly.

Yes, I am making that assumption.

But obviously one can be a Christian, i.e. a follower of Christ, without believing that either the CC or the Bible is infallible

That would depend on how you define “infallible” and “follower of Christ”.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, I am making that assumption. That would depend on how you define “infallible” and “follower of Christ”.

Well, just ponder for the moment that it is possible to follow Christ without faith in infallible transmission to truth to your eyes and ears.

Of course, defining “infallible” and “follower of Christ” would be useful but I would suggest it is not essential to understanding my point.

And once you understand this possibility then you will better appreciate the nature of Catholic faith in the authority of the CC.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Of course, defining “infallible” and “follower of Christ” would be useful but I would suggest it is not essential to understanding my point.

I disagree.

 

[PJM]

=Peter J;4813732]NS,

I have been meaning to comment on the statement in Unam Sanctum; and, seeing as you mentioned it again tonight, I guess it’s high time I do so.

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

First let me say that I cannot say with certainty whether this is an ex cathedra statement or not. Though I guess you already know that. (I can tell you that if it is an ex cathedra statement, then it is infallible as per Vatican I.)

Second, I definitely believe that the statement is correct. It follows from two premises:

• that only those “in the Church” can go to heaven (Note: By “in the Church” I do not mean “in full communion with the Pope”. I mean it in a broader sense.)
• that every person who is in the Church (regardless of whether he/she is Catholic or not) is subject to the Roman Pontiff

Ergo, the only people who can go to heaven are those who are “subject to the Roman Pontiff”.

Your close, perhaps even correct in your thinking, but I’m not exactly sure what it is you mean? SORRY:shrug:

It is an Official Teaching on a matter of Faith, and therefore is to be accepted and obeyed.

As you indicate, one need not be a Catholic inorder to get to heaven.

So did I just disagree with the Popes statement? No, I did not.

Similar to the Commandments, which should be thought of as “catagory of sin headings,” this too, has deeper meaning and implications.

It is because of the Actions and desires of Jesus articulated in Mt. 16:18-20, that the RCC holds that all salvation is THROUGH the Catholic church.

What does this mean?

Well, it means, (logically) that because Christ instituted ONLY ONE CHURCH, His RCC, that all salvation, somehow, mysteriously, has to, as in must always, flow through the RCC.

Keep in mind that the RCC was the only Chrsitian church for more than 1500 years, and that the bible is a Catholic book.

It is because Jesus Himself (neiter a sign nor a symbol) BUT Jesus Himself (please read John Chapter 6:40-60. It is as evident, as is Mt. 16:18, If, If, we Jesus at His WORD??? remains not only Spiritually (Mt. 18:20) but actually (in His now Glorified Body) and really and truly present in the only Church founded by Him.

Logic affirms that as Christ is our Redeemer, and the Source of our Salvation, if we cooperate with Him, that all access to heaven, must flow through Him, and because He is IN and With His RCC, through His Catholic Church.

That is what is meant “through His church.”

There are HUGE sacramental bebefits, and many graces available to Catholics, that are not available outside of the Catholic church.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I disagree.

Why?

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Why?

Because I have no idea what exactly you are trying to say unless you define those terms. It is a nebulous statement. There is no way to simply reflect on the proposition and come to any meaningful conclusion about the implications. There are a multitude of implications.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Because I have no idea what exactly you are trying to say unless you define those terms. It is a nebulous statement. There is no way to simply reflect on the proposition and come to any meaningful conclusion about the implications. There are a multitude of implications.

Well you could start with the usual meanings of the terms.

Infallible: without error.

Following Christ: keeping the commandments (e.g. “Love One Another, As I Have Loved You”.)

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Well you could start with the usual meanings of the terms.

Infallible: without error.

Following Christ: keeping the commandments (e.g. “Love One Another, As I Have Loved You”.)

And what part of the historic faith would you render fallible while salvaging any compelling reason to believe other parts might be infallilble? Or would you just say it is all fallible? In that case, why is it worthy of study or belief at all, except as an artifact? Bertrand Russel gave excellent reasons why Jesus, without being God, did not strike him as as being worthy of worship as a teacher.

And if you are going to dis-invest God’s word with the quality of infallibility, then why attribute omniscience or omnipotence to God, anyway? In that case, what do you call God, anyway?

Nebulous and could go in a hundred directions. Why not just say clearly what you mean here?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And what part of the historic faith would you render fallible while salvaging any compelling reason to believe other parts might be infallilble? Or would you just say it is all fallible? In that case, why is it worthy of study or belief at all, except as an artifact? Bertrand Russel gave excellent reasons why Jesus, without being God, did not strike him as as being worthy of worship as a teacher. And if you are going to dis-invest God’s word with the quality of infallibility, then why attribute omniscience or omnipotence to God, anyway? In that case, what do you call God, anyway? Nebulous and could go in a hundred directions. Why not just say clearly what you mean here?

This really deserves its own thread. (Which is why I didn’t want to be overly specific here.) Your questions are good and fair but for the purpose of this thread, it is sufficient to note that it is not a black and white matter, either you accept the CC and/or the Bible as infalliby true or else you dismiss it all as fairy tales. There is plenty of gray between the two extremes.

 

[Non_Serviam]

See post # 159 for the first part of this reply.

Think about what the NT is. The gospels are witnesses to Christ. Christ never wrote anything. The epistles were written as letters, and they were produced not as a means to document all truth, but were produced secondary to the action of the apostles in leading the Church. I mean, think about how significant that is. What are the epistles? Letters, written to Churches, as apostles exercizing their authority, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to teach and lead the sheep. What evidence do we have that this model should ever have changed? In this model, infallibility sprung out of the Church. That is always where God acts and speaks infallibly today. In people, through the Church.

This is also the reason why the Catholic Church continues to be the primary authority on exorcisms. One of the great errors of Protestantism was the impetus to divorce the Church from physical representation on earth, and create the idea that the things of God are only apprehended in the abstract. The idea that sacramentals are “superstitous” comes from the very same idea that the Church does not speak infallibly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the same issue; the abstraction of God.

This idea of yours that the Apostles spoke infallibly-how does it work? Was every sermon they preached inerrant? If it only operated some times, do you have any proof that they knew when it was active? If it only operated some of the time, then how do we know that the unwritten teachings the Catholic church claims were part of those inerrant sayings? Put some flesh on your model and lets see if it resembles the information we have on the early church.

This is just false. I really don’t know what else to say. I don’t even understand where you get this idea, given the great richness that comes out of Catholic theological work.

I mean- this is nothing but a prejudice you have. It is just untrue.

I’m sorry if you don’t like the direction of the argument-if you can propose a better direction for it, feel free. But how can it be of benefit for those not part of the Magisterium to attempt to interpret Scripture if only those in the Magisterium have the charism to do so?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Your close, perhaps even correct in your thinking, but I’m not exactly sure what it is you mean? SORRY:shrug:

**It is an Official Teaching on a matter of Faith, and therefore is to be accepted and obeyed.

As you indicate, one need not be a Catholic inorder to get to heaven.

So did I just disagree with the Popes statement? No, I did not.**

Similar to the Commandments, which should be thought of as “catagory of sin headings,” this too, has deeper meaning and implications.

It is because of the Actions and desires of Jesus articulated in Mt. 16:18-20, that the RCC holds that all salvation is THROUGH the Catholic church.

What does this mean?

Well, it means, (logically) that because Christ instituted ONLY ONE CHURCH, His RCC, that all salvation, somehow, mysteriously, has to, as in must always, flow through the RCC.

Keep in mind that the RCC was the only Chrsitian church for more than 1500 years, and that the bible is a Catholic book.

It is because Jesus Himself (neiter a sign nor a symbol) BUT Jesus Himself (please read John Chapter 6:40-60. It is as evident, as is Mt. 16:18, If, If, we Jesus at His WORD??? remains not only Spiritually (Mt. 18:20) but actually (in His now Glorified Body) and really and truly present in the only Church founded by Him.

Logic affirms that as Christ is our Redeemer, and the Source of our Salvation, if we cooperate with Him, that all access to heaven, must flow through Him, and because He is IN and With His RCC, through His Catholic Church.

That is what is meant “through His church.”

There are HUGE sacramental bebefits, and many graces available to Catholics, that are not available outside of the Catholic church.

Boniface wrote:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

and yet you say you are agreeing with him when you write:

As you indicate, one need not be a Catholic inorder to get to heaven.

Boniface doesn’t give you that option in what he wrote:

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ

He makes a very clear, very well-reasoned argument, that the church today no longer accepts.

So who’s right, PJM? Boniface or the current Magisterium?

 

[Non_Serviam]

#1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive. We have gone over authority many times, but I still see you (in other quotes) saying that the Catholic claim of authority is substantiated in the person making the claim. This has been said many times, but it seems to still be getting lost. The claim of authority goes back to Jesus. You can’t forget that.

Yes the Catholic church claims the authority to interpret Jesus’ teachings-the proof they offer is their interpretation of those teachings. Bubba expressed it well when he said:

So the essential claim is that the CC got its authority from Jesus. What is the evidence for this claim? It is the CC interpretation of scriptures created and produced by the CC. And what of those who might interpret such scriptures differently? Well, the CC claims sole authority to interpret the scriptures that it created so that is not allowed.

So we are back to the very circularity that you dimissed originally. The only difference is that Jesus is invoked in a level of indirection in the circularity.

Jesus started a church and gave it authority-no one here is debating that-whether the authority the Catholic church claims is the same authority that Christ gave and whether the Catholic church is the rightful claimant of that authority is what is being discussed.

I think part of what might be happening with you is that you aren’t seeing this in its multi-dimensional form. You are comparing this in your mind to secular claims of authority. It seem as if what you are thinking is, (to use another analogy) well, a Supreme Court Justice might have the authority decide a case, but their decision might be incongruent with the body of written law, therefore they cannot be considered the final authority, the real meaning of the written law is the final authority. And you’re correct in that reasoning, but there is another dimension to what we are discussing with the Magisterium.

There is another aspect of this that ties in conceptually with the sacraments. After Jesus’ resurrection in John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Jesus didn’t just say, “hey buddy, you are in charge”, he gave an anointing to the apostles to exercise His authority, since the power to remit and retain sins is God’s alone.

Agreed-but as to who inherited that authority and how sins are remitted and retained (we see examples of both in Acts and Peter is involved and exercises authority, but not in hearing Confession) can’t be assumed to be the purview of the Catholic church. That’s the distinction I’ve made over and over-aspects of the authority claimed today don’t appear in the earliest Scriptures or other writings and given that is the Catholic church entitled to claim to be the inheritor of apostolic authority.

This is important because it represents the principle that the Church acts for God on earth. It acts in dispensing grace through the sacraments, and it acts in speaking infallibly when given the directive by the Holy Spirity to speak infallibly.

Going back to the analogy of the Supreme Court Justice, we can agree that no judge can ever render a decision infallilbly, since the law is man’s law, which is never infallible, and the Justice acts always as a man. In the Church, we have another dimension, and that is that the Church is the real oracle of God.

We could start another thread to discuss the idea of dispensing grace, but suffice it to say that while the NT shows believers pointing others toward the source of grace and helping them to obey Christ’s commandments.

We don’t see the church’s leadership portrayed as having their hand on the faucet of grace, distributing it as they see fit-we see in Acts that when the church dragged its feet about getting to Samaria, that God even overrode their initial role and poured out the Spirit directly, leaving the Apostles to do follow up once they realized their error.

If you think about where infallibility comes from, we have a progressive revelation of where it comes. First it came from burning bushes and was entirely physically separate from man in the Ark of the Covenant. Then, it comes in the form of Man, in Jesus Christ. Following Jesus Christ, infallbility came to us through the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit. It comes to us in union with man.\QUOTE]

Actually every instance is the same-the infallible God communicating with fallible humanity. Moses struck the rock in anger. the High Priest failed to discern who Christ is, Peter denied Christ and fled. All leaders, all fallible.

Jesus didn’t say “Don’t worry, I’m giving you an infallible church” He said “I’m giving you the Spirit, who will lead (future) all of you into (future) all truth.”

What did those fallible men do? Moses led Israel to the promised land, the High Priest prepared the last sacrifice that God would accept for their hands and Peter proclaimed his message of Jesus the Christ on the Day of Pentecost and thousands were freed from the grip of death and made alive by the Holy Spirit. (continued in previous post #157 )

 

[reccanboy]

The Catholics, most of the time, use the Bible as a proof when we face Protestants. That’s demonstrating to you that even the Bible does not favor the position of the Protestants.

But these very same Catholics argue that you cannot know the scriptures apart from the Catholic Church.

So it becomes circular argumentation.