Where does the Catholic Church get its authority to teach

[Non_Serviam]

CATHOLIC comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.
It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein’. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

It is inferred in Matthew 28:19-20,
"Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world."
That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Rom. 1:8 ….and you belong to that Church whose faith St. Paul describes as being "proclaimed (KATanggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)”

Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8

Again the same linguistic fallacy as Erich. The phrase had more than one meaning and universal is only one of them. As we saw in the example of acts it can also mean throughout.

Interesting spin on Matthew, highlighting “all” when it is 'panta" that is used and justifying the misdirection through the use of the word “inferred”. But then Catholics often read back into history what they want to find there.

As for Romans, this was another example of the common meaning of the phrase “throughout”. Reading universal into the passage again makes no sense “proclaimed in the universal unverse”

I’ll also leave it to you to explain why you chose the word “universe” to translate kosmos instead of the more commonly preferred “world”. Was there an apostolic space program that is only referenced in catholic tradition?

Apples and onions.

“Ekklesia Kath olos” refers to the Church which (at least in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria) enjoyed a time of peace – remember that it was being persecuted elsewhere.

“John the Baptist” refers to a single person, John the Baptizer.

Precisely-the peace wasn’t universal-that’s why claiming that the term means “universal” in that verse is a fallacy. Just like it would be a fallacy to use the modern definition of “Baptist” to describe John as opposed to the other definition “one who performs immersions” If you read the lexical history, you’ll see that the term predates religious baptism and is used to describe individuals who immersed material in vats of dye. Of course this wasn’t the common usage by John’s time, so using this definition to describe John would also be a fallacy.

Hope that helps.

 

[paul_c]

Again the same linguistic fallacy as Erich. The phrase had more than one meaning and universal is only one of them. As we saw in the example of acts it can also mean throughout.

Interesting spin on Matthew, highlighting “all” when it is 'panta" that is used and justifying the misdirection through the use of the word “inferred”. But then Catholics often read back into history what they want to find there.

As for Romans, this was another example of the common meaning of the phrase “throughout”. Reading universal into the passage again makes no sense “proclaimed in the universal unverse”

I’ll also leave it to you to explain why you chose the word “universe” to translate kosmos instead of the more commonly preferred “world”. Was there an apostolic space program that is only referenced in catholic tradition?

Precisely-the peace wasn’t universal-that’s why claiming that the term means “universal” in that verse is a fallacy. Just like it would be a fallacy to use the modern definition of “Baptist” to describe John as opposed to the other definition “one who performs immersions” If you read the lexical history, you’ll see that the term predates religious baptism and is used to describe individuals who immersed material in vats of dye. Of course this wasn’t the common usage by John’s time, so using this definition to describe John would also be a fallacy.

Hope that helps.

Honestly, it makes no difference whether the term “Catholic Church” can or can’t be found in the New Testament. What matters is that the Catholic Church, regardless of what it was called, is the same church that was founded by Jesus with the leadership of St. Peter. Names mean little or nothing. After all, if someone wanted to start his own Chirch today and named it " the real Church of Jesus", the name itself wouldn’t make it credible. Indeed, It is the essence of the thing that matters… And it is clear to anyone who understands the history of Christianity that the Catholic Church today is the same church founded by Jesus. The leadership can be traced back through 266 popes to the beginning and the doctrines are the same as taught 2000 years ago. No other church can credibly claim this.

 

[imkingdad]

Kepha, Br, & others TY for a Job well Done…

In order to lend authority to their churches/denominations Protestants have to attack the one, true, catholic, and apostolic church founded by Jesus himself & in doing so undermine Scripture, Tradition, & the Church of God as so carefully denoted by your posts backed up by Scripture & the ECF and Apostolic Tradition.

In order to prop up their failing Churches they must Teardown the Truth; they must lay waste to History. Facts can be a Terrible thing. On the one-hand the Sola-Scriptura crowd wants everthing to be found in the Bible along yet they throw that premise to the ground when it best suits their purpose & create theit own interpretations with assumptions, Implications etc from scripture yet they deny & decry it when another Church does the same. To say they are shameless Hypocrites would be kind and impute better motives to them than actually exist in most cases.

Again Well Done my Fellow Catholics… You make a fella Proud!

 

[steve_b]

Those men are not The Catholic Church.

The apostles are the first in the Church which is called Catholic.
AJ:

There’s nothing that says they were infallible, incapable of error, unaccountable and exempt from norming.

So IOW, they are fallible in their teaching of the faith, capable of misleading into error, unaccountable for what they teach, and exempt from norming? :doh2:
AJ:

In fact, most of Jesus’ ministry was CORRECTING them

He was teaching them. And ultimately He sent the Holy Spirit upon them which transformed them
AJ:

odd if they were incapable of being wrong. And didn’t He call one of them “Satan?” Which one was that?

Why would you think infallibility doesn’t exist?

• Is scripture (OT & NT) infallible or fallible? How do you know? Who decides?
• If it is infallible, when did infallibility end? Who decides that?
• If it is fallible, then it is not free of error. In fact if it is fallible, you can’t even be sure the books selected are the correct ones, OR worth following. Who decides that for you? And is the decision fallible or infallible?

BTW, the one called Satan, chalk it up to Peter’s education. Jesus still gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, true? Peter still received the power to bind and loose…true? Peter was told by Jesus AFTER His resurrection and before His ascension back to heaven, to feed and rule Our Lord’s Church…true? Not just parts of it, ALL of it…true? And Jesus said this to Peter, in front of all the apostles…true?

Jesus made sure Peter was ready. At the right time, He gave Peter all he needed to be leader of the Church. And Jesus followed through with it. To doubt it is to doubt Jesus
AJ:

And you forget that JESUS (God) established them. NEVER calling them infallible/unaccountable.

Why would you think infallible means unaccountable?

Also, by saying no apostle is infallible, you are saying they can’t be trusted to teach without error in matters of faith and morals.

By doing this you make Jesus a lier.
AJ:

But you have yet to show where Jesus so much as even MENTIONED The Catholic Church. About anything, for anything, concerning anything, in any regard - about infalliblity or anything else.

Jesus didn’t mention alot of things.

But He did mention to Peter

• whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven
• those who won’t listen EVEN to the Church treat him as an outsider, a pagan
• Feed and rule my Church

That Church spoken of is the Catholic Church
AJ:

Without discussing the point Clement makes, where is he even claiming that The Catholic Church specifically and exclusively is infallible/unaccountable, and that whatever it says is simply to be accepted with docility?

Again, why do you associate infallibility with unaccountability? You create a false dichotomy

Corinth sought out Rome for help with the sedition of their bishops because it’s the chair of Peter. Clement is the pope at the time, successor to Peter

 

[TEPO]

Honestly, it makes no difference whether the term “Catholic Church” can or can’t be found in the New Testament. What matters is that the Catholic Church, regardless of what it was called, is the same church that was founded by Jesus with the leadership of St. Peter. Names mean little or nothing. After all, if someone wanted to start his own Chirch today and named it " the real Church of Jesus", the name itself wouldn’t make it credible. Indeed, It is the essence of the thing that matters… And it is clear to anyone who understands the history of Christianity that the Catholic Church today is the same church founded by Jesus. The leadership can be traced back through 266 popes to the beginning and the doctrines are the same as taught 2000 years ago. No other church can credibly claim this.

:clapping:

Exactly Paul… It’s no secret that the Catholic Church is the same Church that she’s always been. It’s not complicated at all!

Pope Benedict writes “Letters to the world”(Caritas in Veritate) just like Paul wrote “letters to the Corinthians” (see Bible)!!!

God still offers “modern day” direction just like in the early Church! The Church is the same now as she’s always been and the Bible is proof!

Its proof that the Church has the same authority to teach as she did back then.

 

[kepha1]

Again the same linguistic fallacy as Erich. The phrase had more than one meaning and universal is only one of them. As we saw in the example of acts it can also mean throughout.

Interesting spin on Matthew, highlighting “all” when it is 'panta" that is used and justifying the misdirection through the use of the word “inferred”. But then Catholics often read back into history what they want to find there.

As for Romans, this was another example of the common meaning of the phrase “throughout”. Reading universal into the passage again makes no sense “proclaimed in the universal unverse”

I’ll also leave it to you to explain why you chose the word “universe” to translate kosmos instead of the more commonly preferred “world”. Was there an apostolic space program that is only referenced in catholic tradition?

Precisely-the peace wasn’t universal-that’s why claiming that the term means “universal” in that verse is a fallacy. Just like it would be a fallacy to use the modern definition of “Baptist” to describe John as opposed to the other definition “one who performs immersions” If you read the lexical history, you’ll see that the term predates religious baptism and is used to describe individuals who immersed material in vats of dye. Of course this wasn’t the common usage by John’s time, so using this definition to describe John would also be a fallacy.

Hope that helps.

In other words, “ALL” means everything but what it says, because what it says doesn’t fit your man made systems. A statement of universality is not the same as explicit definitive wording, and I made that quite clear. It is not me that suffers scriptural myopia, a malady that renders one blind to the general intent of the sacred authors. Jesus’ commission to preach the Gospel to ALL nations is no fallacy. It is a statement of universality, which is what Catholic means. Live with it.

 

[steve_b]

Never said it did-just pointed out an equivalent fallacy to the one that you engaged in.

Did you read the passage that you quoted earlier? Let me refresh your memory:

Acts 9:31 Then the church throughout all* Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

Ok, first take a blue crayon and a map of the world and trace the outline of Judea, Galilee and Samaria. Next take a red crayon and indicate within those borders where Rome, Egypt and India are located.

(hint: they aren’t)

Now do you understand why “universal” is the incorrect translation for this passage? Luke was referring to the entire area of a specific geographical area, NOT the “whole known world at the time”.

When was Acts written? ~64 A.D. Was Acts 9:31 meant to describe the entirety of where the Church is? No

When was Romans written? ~54 A.D.

Paul says to the Church of Rome

[Rm 1:]
7* To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8* First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, 10* asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, 12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.

Jesus dies ~30 A.D. If Paul writes Romans in ~54 A.D. and the faith of the Church of Rome is already reported all over the world, then the Church of Rome has surely been there within those previous 20 years.

 

[kepha1]

“The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.
​

”
This, my friends, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him. And anything more than that --such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church. And, by these challenges I, of course, mean things like:
a) The legalization of Christianity by the Roman government (c. 313 A.D.), in which the Church was transformed from a persecuted, underground society to the official religion of the Roman Empire; thus requiring the Popes to operate within the perimeters of imperial Roman law (e.g. the first Ecumenical Councils), and to deal with other secular influences creeping into the Church.
b) The fall of the Western Roman Empire (in 476 A.D.), in which the Papacy acquired the awesome responsibility for holding Western civilization together.
c) 700 years of struggle (c. 342-1054 A.D.) between the Roman Papacy and the Emperors of Constantinople for control over the universal Church. In this, the Byzantine Emperors (the successors of Constantine) saw themselves as “the Christ on earth,” who wielded final authority over the Church (especially in the East). Thus, it was through “competing” with these emperors (many of whom were heretics) that the Popes of Rome were forced to acquire their “emperor-like trappings.” … “Emperor-like trappings” which were equally useful in maintaining peace and relative unity among the warlike kingdoms of medieval Europe; and thus preserving Christian Europe from invasion by the Muslims.
Now, as I said, all of these things affected the style of the Papacy, eventually producing the “dictatorial” image of a Pope that is so repugnant to Protestants. Yet, this has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s creation of the Papacy itself. Indeed, in the early days of the Christianity (when the Church was still an illegal, underground society) the Papacy manifested itself in an entirely different way; with Rome acting more as a final “court of appeal,” rather than as a “hands-on administrator” or secular-style “ruler of the Church.” Therefore, we should not be surprised if we don’t see the earliest Popes acting in an autocratic or dictatorial style (since the historical events which produced that style of Papacy had not yet taken place). On the contrary, in 1 Peter 5:1-4, St. Peter himself illustrates the style in which Popes (and, indeed, all bishops) would exercise their authority for the first 400 or so years of Christianity. He writes:
“So, I exhort the presbyters (i.e., bishops) among you, as a fellow presbyter (i.e., bishop) and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd (i.e., Christ) is revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”
So, the first Popes acted like true Christians! Big surprise! Thus, they did not exercise authority in a secular way, but rather they imitated the humility of Christ, Who did not come to be served, but to serve (e.g. John 13:5-17, Mark 9:35).
Therefore, it is little wonder that anti-Catholics like James White cannot find “a Pope” in the early centuries of the Church. When Pontius Pilate looked at Christ, he did not see “a King” either. If one exercises authority in the way described by St. Peter above, one is not readily perceived as an authority figure by the secular world. Rather, we must look with Christian eyes, and judge authority according to Christian standards (e.g. Mark 9:35, Luke 22:24-26) and not by secular ones. And I would ask you to keep this in mind throughout our debate.
I would also ask you to keep in mind the approach of my opponent, who (like James White before him) will not only try to exploit and misapply Protestant preconceptions about the Papacy, but who will also, no doubt, present numerous, irrelevant arguments having to do with the subsequent history of the Catholic Church. Yet, do not be fooled, or distracted from the issue at hand. This is a debate about what Christ did, or did not, establish… bringyou.to/apologetics/debate14.htm
What has been repeatedly taken place here and other threads is the judgement of the Church based on SECULAR standards. Such arguments are WRONG.
​

 

[Non_Serviam]

Honestly, it makes no difference whether the term “Catholic Church” can or can’t be found in the New Testament. What matters is that the Catholic Church, regardless of what it was called, is the same church that was founded by Jesus with the leadership of St. Peter. Names mean little or nothing. After all, if someone wanted to start his own Chirch today and named it " the real Church of Jesus", the name itself wouldn’t make it credible. Indeed, It is the essence of the thing that matters… And it is clear to anyone who understands the history of Christianity that the Catholic Church today is the same church founded by Jesus. The leadership can be traced back through 266 popes to the beginning and the doctrines are the same as taught 2000 years ago. No other church can credibly claim this.

I agree that the name means little-I simply wasn’t going to stand by and let y’all wave some Greek parlour tricks around to “prove” something that isn’t so. That would be as silly as presbyterians claiming they are the true church because *presbuteros *is in the NT. I’m glad to see that you’ve repented of having tried such an approach.

Now as to your next points (Peter’s role, catholic church=Jesus’ church, exact same doctrines, etc) ALL of these points have been effectively challenged by a number of people, with the catholic answer typically coming down to the circular argument “the catholic church taught us it is the one true church that Jesus commissioned to teach”

There are individuals who have made historical claims for the catholic claims and there is some degree of evidence for them. There are also points where the catholic claims lack evidence.

There is a difference between an Apostle (Paul) pointing forward to a successor (Timothy) and saying “he teaches what it I teach” and a pope pointing back to a now deceased Apostle and saying “I teach what he taught”. The former confirms the successor and the latter is a claim to succession that is asking to be believed.

In other words, “ALL” means everything but what it says, because what it says doesn’t fit your man made systems. A statement of universality is not the same as explicit definitive wording, and I made that quite clear. It is not me that suffers scriptural myopia, a malady that renders one blind to the general intent of the sacred authors. Jesus’ commission to preach the Gospel to ALL nations is no fallacy. It is a statement of universality, which is what Catholic means. Live with it.

In other words All always means all. Sometimes it means universal, but not always. What it also means is that it is unethical in the middle of a discussion on the Greek term katholikos to suggest to people that Matt 28:19 is somehow the exclusive domain of catholicism because the word “all” appears.

I can live with what I’ve written-I don’t need to compensate with colour and larger fonts.

 

[paul_c]

I agree that the name means little-I simply wasn’t going to stand by and let y’all wave some Greek parlour tricks around to “prove” something that isn’t so. That would be as silly as presbyterians claiming they are the true church because *presbuteros *is in the NT. I’m glad to see that you’ve repented of having tried such an approach.

Good. I’m glad we agree that the name is meaningless here. Its the actual legacy that is important.

Now as to your next points (Peter’s role, catholic church=Jesus’ church, exact same doctrines, etc) ALL of these points have been effectively challenged by a number of people, with the catholic answer typically coming down to the circular argument “the catholic church taught us it is the one true church that Jesus commissioned to teach”

Of course every Protestant challenges the Catholic Church’s legacy to the Apostles. If they didnt, they would have to become Catholic. But as for effectively challenged, that is simply not so. The argument I gave you has nothing to do with the Catholic church teaching us that they are the Apostolic church. This can be traced back with written evidence through the Early Church Fathers.

There are individuals who have made historical claims for the catholic claims and there is some degree of evidence for them. There are also points where the catholic claims lack evidence.

Which claims lack evidence? Maybe you just haven’t seen the evidence.

There is a difference between an Apostle (Paul) pointing forward to a successor (Timothy) and saying “he teaches what it I teach” and a pope pointing back to a now deceased Apostle and saying “I teach what he taught”. The former confirms the successor and the latter is a claim to succession that is asking to be believed.

It actually is the reverse, It is possible to show you were consistent with past teachings, It is impossible to say with assurance that your successor will teach what you taught with the same consistency. To your example, Paul was in no position to declare that Timothy would always teach what Paul taught. Paul knew what he taught Timothy but could not say with assurance what Timothy would teach after he died. However, since Paul’s teaching was well documented, Timothy could easily show what he taught is consistent with what Paul taught. And so it goes with the Popes. The preaching of prior popes is well documented and you can trace doctrine back through the ages to its source : Jesus’s teachings.

In other words All always means all. Sometimes it means universal, but not always. What it also means is that it is unethical in the middle of a discussion on the Greek term katholikos to suggest to people that Matt 28:19 is somehow the exclusive domain of catholicism because the word “all” appears.

on this you are correct. just because Jesus said to bring the gospel to all the nations is not proof that it was the Catholic Church he was speaking of. The proof is that the Catholic church can show its succession back to the Apostles that were given that commission.

I can live with what I’ve written-I don’t need to compensate with colour and larger fonts.

 

[cfrancis]

Now as to your next points (Peter’s role, catholic church=Jesus’ church, exact same doctrines, etc) ALL of these points have been effectively challenged by a number of people, with the catholic answer typically coming down to the circular argument “the catholic church taught us it is the one true church that Jesus commissioned to teach”

Then you agree it’s equally circular for you to believe that you are correct because you believe you are correct, right?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Then you agree it’s equally circular for you to believe that you are correct because you believe you are correct, right?

Indeed that would be circular. (I like that we can agree on so many things) Now if I appeal to evidence outside myself that others can verify and use to draw conclusions, there is a much greater chance of my being correct-assuming that I am willing to consider their critique of my proposed answers. (which I am currently doing with your critique on the debate thread).

I acknowledged that there are those who do this in their effort to prove the catholic faith to be true. They’ve provided ideas and comments that provide serious food for thought.

There are others who pull out the “infallible church started by Jesus” trump card in every discussion with no evidence and assume that settles it. This group’s claim is also often based on circular “belief in their own belief” but they try to remain unaware of that.

 

[cfrancis]

Indeed that would be circular. (I like that we can agree on so many things) Now if I appeal to evidence outside myself that others can verify and use to draw conclusions, there is a much greater chance of my being correct-assuming that I am willing to consider their critique of my proposed answers. (which I am currently doing with your critique on the debate thread).

If I’m not mistaken, on that debate thread, your claim is, essentially, your interpretation of Paul is correct because you say it is correct, right

I acknowledged that there are those who do this in their effort to prove the catholic faith to be true. They’ve provided ideas and comments that provide serious food for thought.

There are others who pull out the “infallible church started by Jesus” trump card in every discussion with no evidence and assume that settles it. This group’s claim is also often based on circular “belief in their own belief” but they try to remain unaware of that.

I think it’s just as frequent that the other side pulls out the “Obviously my interpretation if correct because I say so” card. It seems that, in the end, when both sides have presented their cases - very often with the same evidence! - it does come down to each side has faith and confidence that what they presented is truth.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Of course every Protestant challenges the Catholic Church’s legacy to the Apostles. If they didnt, they would have to become Catholic. But as for effectively challenged, that is simply not so. The argument I gave you has nothing to do with the Catholic church teaching us that they are the Apostolic church. This can be traced back with written evidence through the Early Church Fathers.

It’s not only protestants that dispute this-both groups of orthodox also dispute that the catholic church is “the” apostolic church and quote the same fathers to back up their claim.

Of course the catholic church uses the fathers in a circular fashion as well: those fathers that taught what we teach are true fathers and those who taught something else were in error. Rather than judging their current beliefs by the earlier wirings, they judge the earlier writings by their current beliefs. Doesn’t seem like “carrying on the deposit of faith” to me.

It actually is the reverse, It is possible to show you were consistent with past teachings, It is impossible to say with assurance that your successor will teach what you taught with the same consistency. To your example, Paul was in no position to declare that Timothy would always teach what Paul taught. Paul knew what he taught Timothy but could not say with assurance what Timothy would teach after he died. However, since Paul’s teaching was well documented, Timothy could easily show what he taught is consistent with what Paul taught. And so it goes with the Popes. The preaching of prior popes is well documented and you can trace doctrine back through the ages to its source : Jesus’s teachings.

To clarify what I said, Paul could certify that what Timothy was teaching at that moment was the same as Paul’s teaching. You are correct in that he couldn’t influence Timothy’s actions after his death.

Now with the Popes we don’t have this assurance-we have men claiming that their interpretation of what those who came before taught is the only correct interpretation-activating the circular nature of the argument. These earlier popes being dead can neither confirm nor contradict the assertion-much the same situation as modern gay activists claiming that historical figures were homosexual-the people in question can’t respond to the claim.

To address your claim that we have the teaching of the popes to compare with current popes, perhaps you could show me the your copy of the teaching of Linus, or Clement (beyond what is in his epistle) or any of the popes before Victor. If you can’t that’s a rather large gap between Peter and Victor and calls into question any claim that their teaching was the same or of the nature of the office claimed by Victor and later successors.

Thus differences between what popes have taught and the record we have of the Apostles’ teaching in Scripture need to be reconciled rather than glossed over by pointing to a list of names.

 

[Non_Serviam]

If I’m not mistaken, on that debate thread, your claim is, essentially, your interpretation of Paul is correct because you say it is correct, right
I think it’s just as frequent that the other side pulls out the “Obviously my interpretation if correct because I say so” card. It seems that, in the end, when both sides have presented their cases - very often with the same evidence! - it does come down to each side has faith and confidence that what they presented is truth.

I would say that my interpretation of Paul is correct because I’ve limited myself to Paul’s interpretation of Paul, but let’s not split hairs.

As to the second point, it goes beyond simple faith and confidence. When I or another non-catholic claims to infallibly declare our infallibility, I’ll concede that we’re equally at fault in this area. Until then, I’ll continue to assert my hypothesis that this behaviour is more in keeping with the catholic mindset. It’s understandable that believing you have an infallible authority that you would want to use it to settle things-it just isn’t as conducive to mutual understanding as dialogue and debate.

 

[cfrancis]

I would say that my interpretation of Paul is correct because I’ve limited myself to Paul’s interpretation of Paul, but let’s not split hairs.

As to the second point, it goes beyond simple faith and confidence. When I or another non-catholic claims to infallibly declare our infallibility, I’ll concede that we’re equally at fault in this area. Until then, I’ll continue to assert my hypothesis that this behaviour is more in keeping with the catholic mindset. It’s understandable that believing you have an infallible authority that you would want to use it to settle things-it just isn’t as conducive to mutual understanding as dialogue and debate.

Very true, this last point; which is why Catholics must know the Bible. It is the first common ground w/ our non-Catholic brethren.

 

[Erich]

with the catholic answer typically coming down to the circular argument “the catholic church taught us it is the one true church that Jesus commissioned to teach”

It’s not a circular argument. From Proving Inspiration (I won’t quote the whole thing here):

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

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.

 

[kepha1]

It’s not only protestants that dispute this-both groups of orthodox also dispute that the catholic church is “the” apostolic church and quote the same fathers to back up their claim.

Of course the catholic church uses the fathers in a circular fashion as well:

“…MESSAGE TRUNCATED…”

show me the your copy of the teaching of Linus, or Clement (beyond what is in his epistle) or any of the popes before Victor. If you can’t that’s a rather large gap between Peter and Victor and calls into question any claim that their teaching was the same or of the nature of the office claimed by Victor and later successors.

Thus differences between what popes have taught and the record we have of the Apostles’ teaching in Scripture need to be reconciled rather than glossed over by pointing to a list of names.

Sometime around A.D. 90, St. Clement of Rome, who was (let us not forget) the Bishop of Rome, issued an epistle to the Corinthian church. Indeed, this epistle is the earliest Christian writing we have outside of the New Testament. And Clement writes to the Corinthians because the church there had fallen into a state of schism. Some members of the church had overthrown the legitimately-appointed presbyters (contra Acts 14:23), and were refusing to listen to them (contra Hebrews 13:17). And, thus, St. Clement begins his epistle to the Corinthians, saying …
“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions of Emperor Domitian), we feel that we have been **somewhat tardy in **turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.” (1 Clement Chapter 1)
Notice how it was the Corinthians who appealed to Rome. …Just as the early church of Antioch appealed to the Apostles at Jerusalem for a solution to their problems in Acts 15:2. But, why so in this case, since there were no living Apostles in Rome? Indeed, why didn’t the Corinthians of this time appeal to nearby Ephesus (as they did in the days of Paul: 1 Corinth 7:1 & 16:8), where the Apostle John was still alive and presiding!
This fact is documented by another of our early fathers, St. Irenaeus, who writes:
“Then, again, the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and **having John remaining among them permanently **until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the Apostles." (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book III, Chapter III, 180 A.D.).
The Emperor Trajan reigned from A.D. 98 until A.D. 117. Therefore, the Apostle John was indeed presiding in nearby Ephesus when the Corinthians appealed to St. Clement at Rome. So, what was so special about Rome that gave it the authority to settle such disputes? …And to do so even during a time of persecution.
Also, in his quote above, Clement speaks of Rome “turning its attention” to the problems of Corinth, thus implying that Rome routinely instructed the other churches. And he also praises the faith of the Corinthians in a universal context --a context he could only invoked if Rome had universal jurisdiction. And, Clement continues …
“Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.” (1 Clement Chap. XLVI)
Here Clement speaks on behalf of the universal Church in condemning the Corinthian schism. And, he goes on …
“Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.” (1 Clement Chap. LVII)
Clement now gives a direct command, ordering the trouble-makers to submit to the local Corinthian presbyters. Well, … Why does he have the authority to do this? Why should they listen to him when they won’t even listen to their own presbyters?
So, here --as early as A.D. 90 --we have the church of Rome teaching and issuing authoritative instruction to the other churches --something that is never done in the reverse. bringyou.to/apologetics/debate14.htm

This demolishes your claim of using the Fathers in a circular fashion. There is plenty more evidence that proves Rome’s (papal) authority in the early Church. Rome receiving instructions in docrinal matters from other churches is non-existent. And I like large colored fonts because I think the default fonts are boring.

 

[paul_c]

It’s not only protestants that dispute this-both groups of orthodox also dispute that the catholic church is “the” apostolic church and quote the same fathers to back up their claim.

No, the orthodox and the Catholics recognize each other’s apostolic succession.

Of course the catholic church uses the fathers in a circular fashion as well: those fathers that taught what we teach are true fathers and those who taught something else were in error. Rather than judging their current beliefs by the earlier wirings, they judge the earlier writings by their current beliefs. Doesn’t seem like “carrying on the deposit of faith” to me.

No, it doesn’t work like this. The Church fathers that are accepted are the ones that were accepted by the Church during their lives. For instance, Arius, who started the Arian heresy, is not considered a church father because his teachings were declared to be heretical by the church at that time. If the writer was considered Catholic by his peers, he is considered Catholic by us.

To clarify what I said, Paul could certify that what Timothy was teaching at that moment was the same as Paul’s teaching. You are correct in that he couldn’t influence Timothy’s actions after his death.

agreed.

Now with the Popes we don’t have this assurance-we have men claiming that their interpretation of what those who came before taught is the only correct interpretation-activating the circular nature of the argument. These earlier popes being dead can neither confirm nor contradict the assertion-much the same situation as modern gay activists claiming that historical figures were homosexual-the people in question can’t respond to the claim.

Yes but the teachings were continuous and upheld not only by the pope but by his fellow bishops. When a Pope dies, there is still the entire bishopric that knows what he taught and out of that group, they elect the next Pope. For a fallacy to seep in, it would require the entire group of bishops to be decieved simultaneously. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of them simultaneously.

To address your claim that we have the teaching of the popes to compare with current popes, perhaps you could show me the your copy of the teaching of Linus, or Clement (beyond what is in his epistle) or any of the popes before Victor. If you can’t that’s a rather large gap between Peter and Victor and calls into question any claim that their teaching was the same or of the nature of the office claimed by Victor and later successors.

First of all, why are you discarding Clement’s epistle and those of St. Peter.and second of all, the teaching of the popes was propagated by the other bishops as well. You don’t have to relegate yourself only to Papal Bulls to understand the teaching of the church.

Thus differences between what popes have taught and the record we have of the Apostles’ teaching in Scripture need to be reconciled rather than glossed over by pointing to a list of names.

there is no reason to gloss over anything. There are many sources to follow the history of the Catholic church. Try reading Eusebius’ History of the Church written in the early 300s. Its available on line here: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

 

[kepha1]

I would say that my interpretation of Paul is correct because I’ve limited myself to Paul’s interpretation of Paul, but let’s not split hairs.

As to the second point, it goes beyond simple faith and confidence. When I or another non-catholic claims to infallibly declare our infallibility, I’ll concede that we’re equally at fault in this area. Until then, I’ll continue to assert my hypothesis that this behaviour is more in keeping with the catholic mindset. It’s understandable that believing you have an infallible authority that you would want to use it to settle things-it just isn’t as conducive to mutual understanding as dialogue and debate.

Infallible authority, not to teach error, is a negative charism given to the Church by God, or it is a man made invention for power and control. Non-Serviam will “…continue to assert my hypothesis that this behaviour is more in keeping with the catholic mindset…” Jesus gave His very own authority to the Apostles and their successors. That is not a “mindset”, it is a biblical and historical reality. What needs to be clarified is definitions. “infallible authority” to Non Serviam is NOT in accordance with the Catholic understanding. We have to back to the beginning and

1. explain what infallible authority actually is
2. prove that it was given to the Church by God, using scripture and the facts of history.

It is my contention that Protestants grossly misrepresent what we mean by infallible authority and as a result, dialogue goes nowhere. I submit that writings of the Fathers and the councils carries more weight than 16th century Nominalist opinions.

Having absolutely correct interpretation of the Bible is not only what infallible authority is all about, (the Church doesn’t do that very often because the word of God is inexhaustive, leaving scripture open for deeper understanding) It means not teaching error. But to infallibly declare that the Church has no infallible authority (from someone who admits to being fallible) is a circular and self destructive argument.