Who/what gave Catholic Church Ultimate Authority?

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks CommonWeal!

I understand what you are saying, but the bible was written by eye-witnesses and firsthand-witnesses who could testify to every word and action of Jesus. I find this to be much more authoritative than a church claiming it is the one and only church established by Jesus (furthermore, the only church able to interpret scripture).

Thanks for being so kind!

I think it is important to understand that Jesus did not establish the Apostles for the limited duration of their lifetimes…he intended their authority to continue until He returns. Here is scriptural support for that:

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter, and Peter received authority from Jesus to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office of the Royal Steward - also known as the Bishop of Rome) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

**Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then despite the existence of other, lesser stewards (who have their own legitimate areas of authority) don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today? **

 

[GangGreen]

A couple questions to ask yourself if you don’t believe in the authority of the Church.

1. Under whose authority was the Bible compiled? A: The Catholic Church
2. If you don’t believe in the authority who compiled the Bible (The Catholic Church) and you believe that the Bible contains all of the truth required for belief and salvation… under which book in the Bible does it say that the books in the Bible are all of the books which are inspired by God or that any of them are for that matter?

 

[WT1]

Authority is the province of the living (i.e., flesh and blood), just as Christ was a real man who taught as one “with authority.” The Bible is authoritative, in the sense that it is an infallible witness of sacred tradition. But the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. Christ did not leave us a Bible and jokingly say, “Have fun interpreting this thing!” Rather, He gave us a living authority, His Church, to teach and forgive sins in His name.

Well said thank you Brother.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello,

I am a Christian just doing a little research. I am having trouble understanding why the Catholic Church claims it is the one true church?

I’m told that Mt 16:18-19 declares that Peter was the first pope and that the Church is the ultimate authority under God, but this verse cannot be used to prove that declaration because only the Catholic Church can properly interpret the bible. So to me this seems like circular reasoning. Who gave the Catholic Church the ultimate authority?

The church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Paul wrote:

“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

In order for the Church to fulfill its function as the pillar and foundation of the truth, the Church must have authority with which to speak to and teach those who are seeking truth. How can we be sure that the Church has this authority? Jesus illustrated the authority of the church this way:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:15-18)

Jesus tells us to take our unresolved disputes to the Church as the last “court of appeal” for disciplinary matters. He does not tell us to consult the Bible to determine what should be done; no, the Church is the final arbiter. If anyone refuses to listen “even to the Church”, there is no further appeal; he is to be thrown out. Why does the Church have this final say? Because Jesus told the Apostles that “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:16)

If the Church is to speak with any effectiveness at all to the world about the truth on matters of faith and morals (not astronomy, biology or economics, etc.), then it must be able to do so with authority. Therefore, Jesus established a Church that can teach authoritatively regarding these truths. How can the world find the Church unless they can see it?

The authority of the church is Apostolic Authority

The Church’s authority is unique in that it is derived from the authority of the Apostles themselves. Apostolic Authority flows from the Authority of Jesus and the Father.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-19)

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ “ (John 20:21)

From this, we can see that God the Father has given all authority to God the Son who in turn bestows this authority upon His own disciples and sends them out to preach the truth to all the world. Thus, we can see that the Apostolic Authority of the Church is God-given. But how closely should the Church be identified with Christ? Jesus Himself specified how we should receive those sent by Christ:

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16)

 

[Kmon23]

I think the answer you seek ultimately lies in the reality of history regarding this question. We may use scripture, and some may say this is proof that only scripture is infallible truth, but history tells a different story.

Christ gave us a church, and numerous scripture quotes attest to that. During the first few centuries, Christians existed in the context of a church under the authority of bishops. Who else can lead the church but by those with the authority of Christ? The Apostles of course! However, they’re not immortal. Their authority was then passed on to others through the sacrament of ordination, the laying on of hands. How were the teachings maintained? Through oral tradition. This is why St. Paul speaks about keeping fast to the traditions handed down to them.** “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15)**

This was the standard of how the early church functioned and existed. It was not until later that some of these oral teachings and traditions were written down to later become the New Testament. Many different writings were circulated during the first few centuries, and only through the church from synods and councils were they standardized into the canon of scripture today. The Shepard of Hermas and the Didache were largely circulated writings, and it would not be surprising if people of the early church considered it to be scripture/divinely inspired. However, the only reason it remained out of the canon of scripture was because the CHURCH decided it to be so (see Council of Hippo and Carthage). The Bible today is a living testament to the authority of the church.

Now as I said, the authority lies with the bishops, the successors to the Apostles to lead the church. There are basically only 4 churches that fit this specific criteria: The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Church. No Protestant denomination fulfills the criteria of having apostolic succession, of having any ties to the original apostles through the laying of hands. This alone should tell you that Christ’s true church is at most found among those 4 churches I have listed. However with further study and research, most people can narrow it down to 2, and this is something many people have done (me included). Through research and history, most people conclude that the true church is either the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. To discern the decision between these two churches is then up to further research, and a lot of prayer.

I am not a Catholic, and through my own studies I have found Eastern Orthodoxy to be my home, and what I believe to be Christ’s true church. However I have an immense respect for the Catholic Church, especially as a sister church that has the same Apostolic roots as Eastern Orthodoxy. If anyone is to convert, I would have Catholicism above Protestantism no doubt. Ultimately however, is for you to find discernment through research, prayer, and the grace of God.

Hope my post helps!

 

[MyNameIsDan]

Authority is the province of the living (i.e., flesh and blood), just as Christ was a real man who taught as one “with authority.” The Bible is authoritative, in the sense that it is an infallible witness of sacred tradition. But the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. Christ did not leave us a Bible and jokingly say, “Have fun interpreting this thing!” Rather, He gave us a living authority, His Church, to teach and forgive sins in His name.

Thanks Sirach2v4,

You bring up a lot of good points but I want to focus on the question at hand.

The question is where did the Cath Church get its authority to declare itself the ultimate authority? If we are quoting the bible, saying Jesus said so, then we are saying the bible is the ultimate authority?

Thanks!

Good answer by CommonWeal.

I think (and this is just what I think), the Catholic Church refers to the Bible to prove its point to the non-Catholics because the Bible is the only thing the non-Catholics refer to. The Catholic Church can’t start talking about the Magisterium or the teaching authority of the Church if non-Catholics don’t accept it and will only take what is from the Bible.

Example: A parent of yours asks you to write a book for them. They’ll tell you what to write and explain it to you on the way; your job is to just listen and write down what they are trying to say. They then tell you to pass it down to someone else (which you do).

The people who receive the book start saying “This is what the writer meant” and totally disregard you from the picture. Now you, having heard from your mother/father, know what the book means. You see that they are not getting the correct message from the book. So you try to correct them, telling them that you know what the book means because you know the writer (your parent) and they have given you authority to teach what they have taught you. But the recipients still don’t believe you. They’ll only listen to the book which came from you. The only way is to then go to the book and show to them that you are mentioned in there.

 

[Kmon23]

Good answer by CommonWeal.

I think (and this is just what I think), the Catholic Church refers to the Bible to prove its point to the non-Catholics because the Bible is the only thing the non-Catholics refer to. The Catholic Church can’t start talking about the Magisterium or the teaching authority of the Church if non-Catholics don’t accept it and will only take what is from the Bible.

Example: A parent of yours asks you to write a book for them. They’ll tell you what to write and explain it to you on the way; your job is to just listen and write down what they are trying to say. They then tell you to pass it down to someone else (which you do).

The people who receive the book start saying “This is what the writer meant” and totally disregard you from the picture. Now you, having heard from your mother/father, know what the book means. You see that they are not getting the correct message from the book. So you try to correct them, telling them that you know what the book means because you know the writer (your parent) and they have given you authority to teach what they have taught you. But the recipients still don’t believe you. They’ll only listen to the book which came from you. The only way is to then go to the book and show to them that you are mentioned in there.

Great analogy!!

 

[JRKH]

Good answer by CommonWeal.

I think (and this is just what I think), the Catholic Church refers to the Bible to prove its point to the non-Catholics because the Bible is the only thing the non-Catholics refer to. The Catholic Church can’t start talking about the Magisterium or the teaching authority of the Church if non-Catholics don’t accept it and will only take what is from the Bible.

Example: A parent of yours asks you to write a book for them. They’ll tell you what to write and explain it to you on the way; your job is to just listen and write down what they are trying to say. They then tell you to pass it down to someone else (which you do).

The people who receive the book start saying “This is what the writer meant” and totally disregard you from the picture. Now you, having heard from your mother/father, know what the book means. You see that they are not getting the correct message from the book. So you try to correct them, telling them that you know what the book means because you know the writer (your parent) and they have given you authority to teach what they have taught you. But the recipients still don’t believe you. They’ll only listen to the book which came from you. The only way is to then go to the book and show to them that you are mentioned in there.

I LIKE THIS…

If I may take the analogy a bit further…to show apostolic succession.
You are told to pass on the book - and to teach the next generation.
So as you give give the book to many and while some want to argue, others listen and are eager to learn from one who got it from their parent. Then, from these, you choose worthy ones to likewise go and teach and give the book etc…They do the same…Thus we have a succession of teachers, each taught both by word of mouth as well as by letter, what the true meanings are…

Sorry if the above is not explained well… but I hope “NMS” gets the gist.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hello,

I am a Christian just doing a little research. I am having trouble understanding why the Catholic Church claims it is the one true church?

I’m told that Mt 16:18-19 declares that Peter was the first pope and that the Church is the ultimate authority under God, but this verse cannot be used to prove that declaration because only the Catholic Church can properly interpret the bible. So to me this seems like circular reasoning. Who gave the Catholic Church the ultimate authority?

I don’t mean this to be a slam - but I was thinking of something last night that I wanted to share. I notice that protestants will take a passage like the one above - a pretty clear passage in my mind - and say “that doesn’t prove…” etc.
Yet the same protestant will take a passage like 1 Tim 3:16-17 (All Scripture is God breathed…) and declare it to be proof that the Bible is the supreme authority - even though the Bible as we know it did not exist at that time.

I don’t say this to derail the thread but rather to point out that What is “clear” and what is not clear, or what “proves” or does not “prove” is very much in the heart of the reader - not in the text itself.

To understand how the Bible points to the authority of the Church, look at the various references. How many times does the NT point to the Church, or demonstrate the Church as authority and how many times does the NT point to itself (a book) as authority?

I’m not great at explaining these things, but I hope this helps you.

And by the way - Welcome to the Forums. It’s a great place…

Peace
James

 

[ericc]

Thanks for your reply!

So based off this answer it’s actually the Bible that has ultimate authority?

Let me guide you through this with a few sensible statements.

1. Initially there was no Bible. Preaching was done orally. All those that you see in the Bible was from oral tradition. So the apostles were preaching all these verses orally, before there was any “Bible”. The scenario of the time is that being an eyewitness is of supreme importance in conveying whatever you wanted to promote. Literacy was low and books don’t exist as we know it.
2. Later, all these oral teachings ended up in writing which was collated by the Catholic Church and selected and gnostics books identified and thrown out and the Bible was born. But note that not all Church teachings ended up in the written form and included in the Bible. We have Sacred Traditions that is equally important for our faith.
3. So when Bible readers quote the Bible, one has to remember that whatever was quoted in the Bible was previously spoken, taught, communicated orally before the formation of the Bible. And from these teachings the Catholic Church can be seen to be the Church started by Christ and built on the rock of Peter. You can research the progression of the Church from apostles to their disciples i.e. apostolic succession till today. This is factual, not propaganda. Verifiable.
4. And with this short history, you can see that the Church existed prior to the existence of the Bible. That is why you hear of verses of taking to the Church to settle your disputes and not to the Bible because the Bible didn’t exist then. That’s why you hear that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and not the Bible because the Bible was not in existence then. That is why the word Bible doesn’t exist in the Bible because it can not reference itself when it itself hasn’t existed yet.

These are historical facts, not Church propaganda. You can check it out for yourself.

 

[nms553]

Looking at the above I see where part of the problem of understanding is occurring…

The Catholic Church has not declared itself ultimate authority. What the Catholic Church lays claim to - and rightly so - is the teaching, and ministerial authority that was given to it by Christ through the Apostles and their successors. This is illustrated both in Scripture and in the writings of the early Church fathers.

The unbroken apostolic succession of bishops from the apostles to today is testimony of the protection of the Holy Spirit. The Bible, assembled and affirmed by multiple councils of Bishops has been protected, defended, promulgated and taught from by the Catholic Church for millenia.

So - this is not about someone claiming “ultimate authority” for that authority belongs to Christ. What the Church contains is an authority to teach and to minister that was received directly from Christ Himself.

Does this help?

Peace
James

James, excellent answer. I still have some disagreements but that definitely answers my question!!

 

[pablope]

riginally Posted by JRKH View Post
Looking at the above I see where part of the problem of understanding is occurring…

And may I add something, NMS…you can see this apostolic succession in its beginning in the Bible itself, in St. Paul. You are familiar with how St. Paul or Saul then, is called in Acts 9, yet this is what he does after that initial call:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

And yet, he needs affirmation of what he is to teach…and the HS leads him back to the Apostles at Jerusalem:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

And before he goes on his first missionary journey with Barnabas:

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
Look at verse 3 and see what the Antioch Church elders do…“they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

And keep in mind this passage from Romans 10:

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Look at how St. Paul is sent, he went through all these steps.

 

[nms553]

And may I add something, NMS…you can see this apostolic succession in its beginning in the Bible itself, in St. Paul. You are familiar with how St. Paul or Saul then, is called in Acts 9, yet this is what he does after that initial call:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

And yet, he needs affirmation of what he is to teach…and the HS leads him back to the Apostles at Jerusalem:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

And before he goes on his first missionary journey with Barnabas:

Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
Look at verse 3 and see what the Antioch Church elders do…“they placed their hands on them and sent them off.”

And keep in mind this passage from Romans 10:

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Look at how St. Paul is sent, he went through all these steps.

Thanks again for the kind reply. I want to have everyone know thanks so much for your replies. I have not had a chance to catch up, as some are lengthy and meaty, and trying to balance family and day job. You guys are awesome though.

Pablope,

I’ve read all the passage you provided; however, this doesn’t infer anything whatsoever about the capital C Catholic church. In fact, these passages hold true for all Christian Churches (guided by the holy spirit, laying on of hands, etc).

 

[JRKH]

James, excellent answer. I still have some disagreements but that definitely answers my question!!

Glad my answer was of help to you. I hope that the many other excellent answers were also helpful.

It might sound strange but in many ways it was something of a “bible alone” viewpoint that ultimately led me back into the Catholic Church. You see - if one looks through the NT one will find a couple of very interesting things…

1. Scripture points to the Church - not itself - as being authoritative. In particular I point to Mt 18:15-15 and Act 15 as the ultimate example of this. In Mt 18:15-18 is a set of instructions for dealing with conflict in the community. In Acts 15 is the example of those instructions being played out.
   Not only did the Church show that it had authority, but that this authority was universal.
2. The NT Scripture repeatedly calls the faithful to unity. Not a loose sort of unity but a profound unity in mind. This starts with Jesus prayer that we be one as He and the Father are one. This continues in Paul’s letters where is repeatedly exhorts the faithful to be of one mind, to avoid dissention, to praise with one heart, etc.

Taking all of these things together, the NT clearly speaks of a single body (church) with Christ granted authority and the protection of the Holy Spirit, teaching and protecting the truth of the Gospel.

Compare this scriptural basis with the post reformation church model(s) where groups split apart, each going their own way and each teaching something different and yet each claiming the Bible as their sole authority.
If they really believe in the Bible as sole authority, shouldn’t they be seeking to come together in council (ala Act 15) to resolve the differences?

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[nms553]

The answer to your question is contained in this article and summarized in the concluding paragraph.

Proving Inspiration
catholic.com/tracts/proving-inspiration

The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

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.

The advantages of the Catholic approach are two: First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.

Hi Randy,

I LOVE the account of Christ at the beginning of this post! It’ truly amazing the historical evidence can back up Christ’s claim to be God What we agree on is that Christ estbliashed a church. It is true. However where we deviate is non-Catholics say it is the Christian Church and Catholics say it is the Rom Catholic Church. Which is true is a matter of debate

The best part about your post is that you say the Catholic Church refers to the Bible as a historical text to back up their claim of it’s existence. When I originally posted this thread, I thought the Catholic Church claimed it existed because the bible said so, and backed up that claim by saying that only they can interpret the bible correctly – which is circular reasoning. But now I understand the difference

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hi Randy,

I LOVE the account of Christ at the beginning of this post! It’ truly amazing the historical evidence can back up Christ’s claim to be God What we agree on is that Christ estbliashed a church. It is true. However where we deviate is non-Catholics say it is the Christian Church and Catholics say it is the Rom Catholic Church. Which is true is a matter of debate

What “Christian” Church claims to have been around from the time of Christ other than Catholics and Orthodox?

The best part about your post is that you say the Catholic Church refers to the Bible as a historical text to back up their claim of it’s existence. When I originally posted this thread, I thought the Catholic Church claimed it existed because the bible said so, and backed up that claim by saying that only they can interpret the bible correctly – which is circular reasoning. But now I understand the difference

It’s like the Constitution of the USA. Did the Constitution found the USA, or did the people - the founding fathers - write down their reasoning and declare this founding? The Constitution is a reference because the founding fathers created it when declaring the USA independent, the USA didn’t “come out of” the Constitution.

 

[JRKH]

Hi Randy,

I LOVE the account of Christ at the beginning of this post! It’ truly amazing the historical evidence can back up Christ’s claim to be God What we agree on is that Christ estbliashed a church. It is true. However where we deviate is non-Catholics say it is the Christian Church and Catholics say it is the Rom Catholic Church. Which is true is a matter of debate

The best part about your post is that you say the Catholic Church refers to the Bible as a historical text to back up their claim of it’s existence. When I originally posted this thread, I thought the Catholic Church claimed it existed because the bible said so, and backed up that claim by saying that only they can interpret the bible correctly – which is circular reasoning. But now I understand the difference

Just to clarify something…Before the reformation the Church did not refer to itself as “Roman Catholics”. It was (and still is) simply “the Church” - Catholic means universal and “Roman” was something imposed on the church by protestants after the reformation.

Various terms were applied to the Church and it’s adherents…Papists, “the Romesh Church” etc. “Roman Catholic” is simply the one that seems to have stuck and been used ever since.
There is more but I’m not well versed enough on it.

Peace
James

 

[nms553]

Glad my answer was of help to you. I hope that the many other excellent answers were also helpful.

It might sound strange but in many ways it was something of a “bible alone” viewpoint that ultimately led me back into the Catholic Church. You see - if one looks through the NT one will find a couple of very interesting things…

1. Scripture points to the Church - not itself - as being authoritative. In particular I point to Mt 18:15-15 and Act 15 as the ultimate example of this. In Mt 18:15-18 is a set of instructions for dealing with conflict in the community. In Acts 15 is the example of those instructions being played out.
   Not only did the Church show that it had authority, but that this authority was universal.
2. The NT Scripture repeatedly calls the faithful to unity. Not a loose sort of unity but a profound unity in mind. This starts with Jesus prayer that we be one as He and the Father are one. This continues in Paul’s letters where is repeatedly exhorts the faithful to be of one mind, to avoid dissention, to praise with one heart, etc.

Taking all of these things together, the NT clearly speaks of a single body (church) with Christ granted authority and the protection of the Holy Spirit, teaching and protecting the truth of the Gospel.

Compare this scriptural basis with the post reformation church model(s) where groups split apart, each going their own way and each teaching something different and yet each claiming the Bible as their sole authority.
If they really believe in the Bible as sole authority, shouldn’t they be seeking to come together in council (ala Act 15) to resolve the differences?

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

Hello again James!

1. I would say that these instructions still apply to the Christian Church today. Christian churches model themselves after the apostles. This leads to point 2.
2. Because of the bible and the Holy Spirit, Christian Churches can be unified. In fact, most of the hundreds of Christians I know believe in a unified message: the Apostles Creed

Regarding a single body. There is no doubt Jesus’ prayer for unity is true and alive today. When I look at the Christian Church I see that unity. The reformers were not protesting because of a vendetta, they protested to bring the church back to the first-century church Jesus intended.

Of course there are Christian Churches who have abused it, too. This resembles Paul and Peter’s teachings regarding false teachers. However, just because a Christian believes in a young or old earth or that only Hymns should be sung in church, does not warrant disunity.

 

[spina1953]

Just to clarify something…Before the reformation the Church did not refer to itself as “Roman Catholics”. It was (and still is) simply “the Church” - Catholic means universal and “Roman” was something imposed on the church by protestants after the reformation.

Various terms were applied to the Church and it’s adherents…Papists, “the Romesh Church” etc. “Roman Catholic” is simply the one that seems to have stuck and been used ever since.
There is more but I’m not well versed enough on it.

Peace
James

Hi James: I would like to add to your post that Roman is a rite and there are many rites within the Catholic Church. Thanks!

 

[nms553]

What “Christian” Church claims to have been around from the time of Christ other than Catholics and Orthodox?

It’s like the Constitution of the USA. Did the Constitution found the USA, or did the people - the founding fathers - write down their reasoning and declare this founding? The Constitution is a reference because the founding fathers created it when declaring the USA independent, the USA didn’t “come out of” the Constitution.

Hello Syro,

I believe any Christian Church who teaches the good news as witnessed in the bible is as old as the first-century church itself.

Very good point in your second paragraph! If you are referring to the bible (correct me if I am wrong) I agree 100% that the church came before the bible – just not the capital C Catholic Church.