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

[Steven_John]

The Catholic claim of authority comes from an unbroken succession of apostolic teaching that ends in Jesus. It is understood that the Muslim religion has a different teaching of Jesus. But that is for another thread. To answer the question, it comes from our claim to know Jesus’ teachings.

The claim of authority does not cause division, it brings unity. How could you claim otherwise?

The differences in practice between Catholics is not unique to Christianity, the same is true of Islam, but it is not relevant to the claim of authority.

Maybe you have some Islamic issues.
I don’t know what this discussion has to do with Islam, i think to go there leaves the topic of this thread.

I did not ask where the claim comes from and don’t see the relevance to my post. Maybe it is real important to you to tell people this as a reaffirmation of how other men explained it to you.
Or maybe you read the bible and God inspired it in your own self as a revelation before any man offered it to you.

Do you know where the spirit is moving? or is it like the wind and is not known where it goes.

The claim of authority does not cause division, it brings unity. How could you claim otherwise?

I feel i offered this in my other posts.
You wanting me to go further I feel if the claim of authority brings unity this discussion would not take place, unless you see all others as outside of Gods authority.

Again God can raise descendants of Abraham (pbuh) from rocks, surely these will be of the true church, who can speak against the works of God.

If the Catholic church had true authority it would only offer infallible teaching. Jesus (pbwh) has authority and did not offer fallible teaching.

I think our last PP said it well when he spoke of our Anglican paster as his brother priest but you are welcome to view him as outside of Gods authority if that is comfortable for you.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Steven, in my opinion you have offered nothing at all to this discussion and I don’t have the slightest interest in engaging you in conversation. Good day.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

The poster has no idea what they are talking about. That is becoming more and more obvious.

Napsack, you obviously are being deliberately obstinate, or you really do fail to grasp the concepts here. If you agree with the past poster then YOU don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

The fact that some Proetstant denominations have their own authoritative teachings, that are called catechisms, Anglicans or Lutherans, for example, does not invalidate the existence of the Magisterium, which does NOT exist in Protestantism.

Or are you telling us you don’t understand that Protestants don’t have a historical Magisterium?

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Don’t put this on me. This is all having to do with your church. If someone who doesn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception takes communion, they are outside the parameters of the church. I know that and so do you. People’s individual beliefs don’t invalidate church teaching whether they are Catholic or Protestant but the point is that they do exist. Diversity exists in the Catholic church the same as it exists elsewhere. Never is everyone on the same page.

You know, I think I am just going to have to stop having this discussion with you because your assocations are so loose. It’s like playing frisbee with someone who keeps dive bombing it into the yard.

Diversity somehow disproves the Catholic Church’s claim to teaching authority. This is the argument you are trying to make.

That’s like saying wearing purple to a Sooners game invalidates their historical win-loss record.

 

[Napsack]

You know, I think I am just going to have to stop having this discussion with you because your assocations are so loose. It’s like playing frisbee with someone who keeps dive bombing it into the yard.

Diversity somehow disproves the Catholic Church’s claim to teaching authority. This is the argument you are trying to make.

Diversity is what your church does not tolerate. That’s the point.

 

[Napsack]

Napsack, you obviously are being deliberately obstinate, or you really do fail to grasp the concepts here. If you agree with the past poster then YOU don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

The fact that some Proetstant denominations have their own authoritative teachings, that are called catechisms, Anglicans or Lutherans, for example, does not invalidate the existence of the Magisterium, which does NOT exist in Protestantism.

Who cares? These are your beliefs, not mine. You made the statement that only Catholics have a catecism and its simply false. You can beat the idea of exclusive authority only resting with your church, but again these are your beliefs only.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Rather than respond to any more posts that are irrelevant to the argument, I am posting the below as my final post, and suggest you study this and then think carefully about your positions.

Question #1: Is Scripture the ultimate authority for Christian theology?

Implied Question A: Is Scripture authoritative?
Answer A: Yes
Implied Question B: Why?
Answer B: Because there is a canon.
Pope Innocent I closed the canon in 402 after 3 Church councils debated the canon.
Conclusion A: Scripture’s authority is derived from the canon.
The canon is a list of authoritative books determined by the judgment of men who debated for decades and was authorized by papal decree.
Conclusion B: Therefore, any appeal to Scripture is also an appeal to the judgment of Pope Innocent I.

In fact Martin Luther did not trust the judgment of Pope Innocent I, and attempted to remove the Book of James and Revelation from the canon, and he ADDED a word to the book of Romans to support Sola Fide.

Therefore, not only is Scripture (in its current canonical form) not the ultimate authority for Christian theology for either Protestants or Catholics, it was not regarded as authoritative for Martin Luther in its complete form, since he attempted to alter the current canon.

Question #2: Is the Catholic appeal to religious authority as the ultimate authority circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning involves a circle; when you ask for the source of authority, the source of authority points back to the whence it came.

In Catholic thought, the finger keeps pointing until we get to Matthew 16:13-19. Here Peter confesses Christ, and is given authority by Jesus. The ultimate authority for the Church is the Person of Jesus. However, because Jesus in not here in ascended form, we trust that the authority He passed on is being preserved by God.

That’s where the source ends. It is contained in the current successor to Jesus. Now, you may not like the appeal to religious authority, but please do not call it circular reasoning, because it is not.

The appeal to authority is considered a logical fallacy by secularists, because the system of logic rejects infallible authority. Obviously, I don’t care, because I have religious faith in the existence of infallible authority. But make no mistake: all the Catholic claim of authority is based on is Tradition and succession.

Question #3: Is the Protestant appeal to the Bible as the ultimate authority circular reasoning?

The counter-argument to accepting authoritative decrees of “fallible men”, (regardless of the fact that fallible men like Peter, who was such a sinner that he denied Christ, and yet Christ turned around and gave him authority on earth) is the notion that the ultimate theological authority is the Bible.

This makes sense at a highly superficial level because the Bible is a book, and everyone has one today, and we associate books with laws, and with authoritative government documents like the Constitution.

There are two problems. First, an ultimate authority that derives its authority from a higher authority cannot be the ultimate authority. The Bible derives its authority from the councils of men and the authority of the Pope, and the councils of men and the authorities of the Pope derive their authority from Jesus.

The second problem is that the Bible does not interpret itself, despite Protestant claims to the contrary.

If the Bible does not interpret itself, then it requires an interpreter. We know that (some) Protestants do not take Scripture at face value, and cover Scripture with their own biases, because they do things such as interpret John 6 symbolically. Therefore, we do not have a direct line between the Bible and the person. Interpretation intervenes. If we require a Biblical interpreter in Protestant thinking, then we have established a circular process in the establishment of authority.

What is the ultimate authority? The Bible. Who has the correct interpretation? I do. Why? Because my arguments are Biblical.

In Protestant form we have > Bible> Interpretation>Bible.

At some point, someone is going to reach an interpretative impasse. What happens if two interpreters cannot resolve their disagreement by appeal to the Bible? Another denomination is born.

Notice that if we use the Catholic argument, we have a different result. What is the ultimate authority? The Person of Christ, who we call authoritative because He rose from the dead.

How do we know about Him? He passed His authority on to the apostles, who passed their teachings on in both oral and written form.

In the Catholic form, we have Jesus-> Authority of the Apostles> Oral and Written Teachings. The authority of the teachings derives their authority from the authority of the apostles. The authority of the apostles is derived from Jesus.

We don’t have private interpreters pointing forward to the Bible and creating a logical circle. The Catholic interpreters of the Bible point backwards to the authority passed on to them by Jesus.

Obviously, many don’t accept their authority. You don’t have to accept the authority, but call it what it is.

 

[Napsack]

Rather than respond to any more posts that are irrelevant to the argument, I am posting the below as my final post, and suggest you study this and then think carefully about your positions.

Question #1: Is Scripture the ultimate authority for Christian theology?

Implied Question A: Is Scripture authoritative?
Answer A: Yes
Implied Question B: Why?
Answer B: Because there is a canon.
Pope Innocent I closed the canon in 402 after 3 Church councils debated the canon.
Conclusion A: Scripture’s authority is derived from the canon.
The canon is a list of authoritative books determined by the judgment of men who debated for decades and was authorized by papal decree.
Conclusion B: Therefore, any appeal to Scripture is also an appeal to the judgment of Pope Innocent I.

In fact Martin Luther did not trust the judgment of Pope Innocent I, and attempted to remove the Book of James and Revelation from the canon, and he ADDED a word to the book of Romans to support Sola Fide.

Therefore, not only is Scripture (in its current canonical form) not the ultimate authority for Christian theology for either Protestants or Catholics, it was not regarded as authoritative for Martin Luther in its complete form, since he attempted to alter the current canon.

Question #2: Is the Catholic appeal to religious authority as the ultimate authority circular reasoning?

Circular reasoning involves a circle; when you ask for the source of authority, the source of authority points back to the whence it came.

In Catholic thought, the finger keeps pointing until we get to Matthew 16:13-19. Here Peter confesses Christ, and is given authority by Jesus. The ultimate authority for the Church is the Person of Jesus. However, because Jesus in not here in ascended form, we trust that the authority He passed on is being preserved by God.

That’s where the source ends. It is contained in the current successor to Jesus. Now, you may not like the appeal to religious authority, but please do not call it circular reasoning, because it is not.

The appeal to authority is considered a logical fallacy by secularists, because the system of logic rejects infallible authority. Obviously, I don’t care, because I have religious faith in the existence of infallible authority. But make no mistake: all the Catholic claim of authority is based on is Tradition and succession.

Question #3: Is the Protestant appeal to the Bible as the ultimate authority circular reasoning?

The counter-argument to accepting authoritative decrees of “fallible men”, (regardless of the fact that fallible men like Peter, who was such a sinner that he denied Christ, and yet Christ turned around and gave him authority on earth) is the notion that the ultimate theological authority is the Bible.

This makes sense at a highly superficial level because the Bible is a book, and everyone has one today, and we associate books with laws, and with authoritative government documents like the Constitution.

There are two problems. First, an ultimate authority that derives its authority from a higher authority cannot be the ultimate authority. The Bible derives its authority from the councils of men and the authority of the Pope, and the councils of men and the authorities of the Pope derive their authority from Jesus.

The second problem is that the Bible does not interpret itself, despite Protestant claims to the contrary.

If the Bible does not interpret itself, then it requires an interpreter. We know that (some) Protestants do not take Scripture at face value, and cover Scripture with their own biases, because they do things such as interpret John 6 symbolically. Therefore, we do not have a direct line between the Bible and the person. Interpretation intervenes. If we require a Biblical interpreter in Protestant thinking, then we have established a circular process in the establishment of authority.

What is the ultimate authority? The Bible. Who has the correct interpretation? I do. Why? Because my arguments are Biblical.

In Protestant form we have > Bible> Interpretation>Bible.

At some point, someone is going to reach an interpretative impasse. What happens if two interpreters cannot resolve their disagreement by appeal to the Bible? Another denomination is born.

Notice that if we use the Catholic argument, we have a different result. What is the ultimate authority? The Person of Christ, who we call authoritative because He rose from the dead.

How do we know about Him? He passed His authority on to the apostles, who passed their teachings on in both oral and written form.

In the Catholic form, we have Jesus-> Authority of the Apostles> Oral and Written Teachings. The authority of the teachings derives their authority from the authority of the apostles. The authority of the apostles is derived from Jesus.

We don’t have private interpreters pointing forward to the Bible and creating a logical circle. The Catholic interpreters of the Bible point backwards to the authority passed on to them by Jesus.

Obviously, many don’t accept their authority. You don’t have to accept the authority, but call it what it is.

Your so called last post is an abject lie that you can try to jam down someone else’s throat. My authority is Jesus Christ who ALONE sustains me and ALONE saves me. Good luck to you in your endeavors of otherwise.

 

[theistgal]

Your so called last post is an abject lie that you can try to jam down someone else’s throat. My authority is Jesus Christ who ALONE sustains me and ALONE saves me. Good luck to you in your endeavors of otherwise.

Wow, I was actually enjoying – and learning from both sides in – this intelligent discussion. Too bad it had to end on such a low note.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Wow, I was actually enjoying – and learning from both sides in – this intelligent discussion. Too bad it had to end on such a low note.

It is unfortunate, but it doesn’t have to end-feel free to contribute your thoughts on the topic. There are a couple of older posts I’m planning to reply to.

 

[Non_Serviam]

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.

With regard to discussions with materialists-one has to begin by identifying the appropriate types of evidents for different types of discussions-some lend themselves to the scientific method of evidence while others don’t and tend to rely on historical and documentary evidence. If a materialst disputes this, ask them to prove their own birth via the scientific method.

The historicity of the biblical documents have been proven a number of times-starting from that basis one can also incorporate historical evidence and other documentary evidence to demonstrate the existence of Christ, His disciples and the early church. From that basis one can look at the teachings of the early church, and it is at this point that one challenges materialistic preconceptions.

Having said this, if one can demonstrate to a materialist the existence of Jesus and His church and sketch out what that church looked like, it certainly should be possible for a believer to do the same with another believer who agrees to the authority of the Person of Jesus but who has some differing ideas on ecclesiology and how that authority is presently manifest.

 

[theistgal]

It is unfortunate, but it doesn’t have to end-feel free to contribute your thoughts on the topic. There are a couple of older posts I’m planning to reply to.

My main thought is that I think the OP brought up some excellent questions, which thoughtful Catholics ought to be able to answer. And many did, but the OP seems to have gotten frustrated with some of the less-reasonable answers, and lost his (her) temper at the end. I’m always sorry to see that happen, though it’s understandable in this sort of milieu.

 

[Non_Serviam]

My main thought is that I think the OP brought up some excellent questions, which thoughtful Catholics ought to be able to answer. And many did, but the OP seems to have gotten frustrated with some of the less-reasonable answers, and lost his (her) temper at the end. I’m always sorry to see that happen, though it’s understandable in this sort of milieu.

Actually, I’m the OP, but I agree that a good deal of what Angels was posting was thought provoking, even if I didn’t agree with everything.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Your so called last post is an abject lie that you can try to jam down someone else’s throat. My authority is Jesus Christ who ALONE sustains me and ALONE saves me. Good luck to you in your endeavors of otherwise.

Ooookay… That was not what I was expecting. One thing I wanted to add is that the current Magisterium always returns to prior declarations of infallibility, and works within that framework. So, because the canon was established between 382-405, (beginning with the Synod of Hippo and the Council of Rome, and ending with Pope Innocent I responding to a request for the complete list of canonical books,) later Magesteriums, if they are guided by the Holy Spirit, will not stray from the infallible canon and its teachings when declaring dogma.

So, because of that, the current Pope DOES look to the Bible and will not contradict it when speaking ex-cathedra. The Pope also looks to other infallible declarations that occurred after the establishment of the canon.

This is actually a pretty tall order, because it asks for coherent revelation to be preserved across thousands of years, wars, internal conflict, cultural changes and revolutions. And yet, the Catholic church still makes a coherent argument for teaching internally consistently.

Some people will argue sincerely that they believe the pope has led the church into doctrinal error and strayed from first infallible teachings, of course, and they have some worthwhile arguments. I have heard nothing yet to convince me the Catholic Church is not preserved by the Holy Spirit, though.

In fact, the canon was debated vigorously among theologians. Those debates and questions should stay within the Church, where they can serve as tools for men to cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s leading. This is a very Catholic idea- that our reasons and will are joined with God’s and that the Holy Spirit leads through people.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

With regard to discussions with materialists-one has to begin by identifying the appropriate types of evidents for different types of discussions-some lend themselves to the scientific method of evidence while others don’t and tend to rely on historical and documentary evidence. If a materialst disputes this, ask them to prove their own birth via the scientific method.

The historicity of the biblical documents have been proven a number of times-starting from that basis one can also incorporate historical evidence and other documentary evidence to demonstrate the existence of Christ, His disciples and the early church. From that basis one can look at the teachings of the early church, and it is at this point that one challenges materialistic preconceptions.

Having said this, if one can demonstrate to a materialist the existence of Jesus and His church and sketch out what that church looked like, it certainly should be possible for a believer to do the same with another believer who agrees to the authority of the Person of Jesus but who has some differing ideas on ecclesiology and how that authority is presently manifest.

I think there is a reasonable argument for believing the testimony of the apostles, for sure. But I know there is not an air-tight, compelling argument for asserting we can know without a doubt on the basis of the evidence alone that Christianity is true. There is nothing that disproves the historical record of Christianity. If there were, then we would be foolish to continue to believe. There is also nothing that compels us to believe beyond any doubt. If there were, then we would not have faith.

This does not bother me. Historical records from the 1st century make it clear that the “so-called Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth” was not believed by even those who knew of their sect, that Paul claims is well-known as “The Way”, in the Book of Acts before Festus and Agrippa. Remember, they call him crazy when Paul tells them Jesus appeared to him… not too different than how someone would react today.

 

[Peter_J]

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

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.

Hi NS,

I would imagine that at some point you’ve come across Wikipedia pages which have a note like “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.”

No offense, but I think a similar statement could be made about the OP (quoted above). In that vein, I would like to help by quoting (not paraphrasing) Catholic teaching on this matter:

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei ), 45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.” 46

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” 47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” 48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, 49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

(I could also quote # 109-119, but Eucharisted has already done so.)

No, I don’t see that as “circular”. I see it as a proper statement of what Catholics believe.

 

[Athanasiy]

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??

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.

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??

I think the answer is - Holy Spirit !

 

[Athanasiy]

There is interesting quotation , I found on this forum , the quotation which belongs to the John Henry Newman , he says ;

• “ The books are inspired, because the writers were inspired to write the.’’

I think that the Scripture is inspired by the Holly Spirit but , the Holy Spirit used the human creatures to write it , the human creatures with its human limitations.
The book can not make decision , therefore how can we say that it is unable to err ?
We can not even say phrase like - ‘ The Bible says ‘’ , because the book cannot literally speak or teach.
What about the language that personifies the written word ??
I even would dare to say that in some way , we can not even literally use this word for books calling them - infallible .
In what way for example can we call the Song of Songs infallible ?
Of course , the Bible has a meaning for the today’s world !
But I totally disagree with the doubtful Evangelical phrase that the ‘’Bible and only Bible saves man’s souls.’’
We discuss on this thread the ‘using of Church’s authority to prove the Church’s authority’.
I personally can agree that during the Church history there were indeed the times when the Christian had to put ‘‘the personal conscience above the church’s teaching’’.
But , I can not ignore that there was , there is , and there will be institution called the Church.
I see very clearly and simply .
There is a ‘’ Church .’’ The institution which during the history was called by this name – ‘’Church’’ , and its still called the
‘’Church ‘’today.
So for me , no questions can arise , every thing is evident , simple and clear.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hi NS,

I would imagine that at some point you’ve come across Wikipedia pages which have a note like “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.”

No offense, but I think a similar statement could be made about the OP (quoted above). In that vein, I would like to help by quoting (not paraphrasing) Catholic teaching on this matter:

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei ), 45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.” 46

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” 47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” 48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, 49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

(I could also quote # 109-119, but Eucharisted has already done so.)

No, I don’t see that as “circular”. I see it as a proper statement of what Catholics believe.

Peter,

You’ve given me part of a document produced and/or endorsed by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church that teaches that:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.”

They claim the authority of Jesus and then reiterate:

“This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”

In other words my proposition #2:

1. The Catholic church teaches that only the Catholic church possesses the full teaching of the Apostles.

Doesn’t get much more circular than that.

What I find interesting is that a number of Catholics on this forum don’t follow these points-rather than quoting authoritative interpretations from Bishops they offer their own words to us Non-Catholics (you appear to have done the right thing here). Your Catechism makes it very clear that this is a no-no. Next time one of them does it, I’ll point them toward the part about docile acceptance of “pastoral teachings and directives.”

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I’m really disappointed that the concept of circular reasoning is escaping people.

Is it circular to say that only Shakespeare has the authority to interpret his own work in the fullness of the meaning that he intended, and after he dies, only those he has personally mentored can produce new insights into his work? (And after they die, only those that have received their insights have the authority to produce new insights and interpret the work.)

No, that is not circular validation, it is authoritative validation.

On the other hand, two warring Elizabethan scholars both claim they have the correct interpretation of Shakespeare. Both are asked why they have the correct interpretation. When both are asked, “on the basis of what authority do you render this intepretation?”, they both say, “Shakespeare”. THAT is circular reasoning.

Saying “I am the final authority” on the basis of being given authority is a valid claim to authority, and is not circular validation. Pointing to the text you are trying to interpret as the basis of your authority is circular validation.

You are confusing circular reasoning to validate Church authority with having objective, corroborating evidence of Church authority.

In what universe would objective, corroborating evidence of Church authority exist? One in which God came down to earth and said, “here, you have Church authority.” Pretty absurd, huh?

Oh, wait. I guess we do live in that universe. That’s exactly what the Catholic church claims happens.