Why I rejected Sola Scriptura

[RNRobert]

II Paradox II:

it’s not a rejection of “living tradition” in the sense of development. I think it is clear that the faith has developed over time.

The “living tradition” being objected to is that spoken of by Irenaeus, a purely oral tradion that bypasses the scriptures entirely and even perhaps the earliest centuries of recorded church doctrine and practice. A “living tradition” that is not accepted by many branches of the church, say for example, the issue of papal infallibility being rejected by everyone except Rome.

ken

I can’t understand why the concept of papal infallibility is such a stumbling block to Protestants (and keep in mind I’m only talking about the Pope speaking in regard to faith or morals, not to his opinions or actions). As I pointed out in my original post, the only thing the early Christians had to go on was oral tradition. If the Holy Spirit had been unable to preserve oral tradition from error, Christianity would have run off the rails from the get-go. I also find it hard to swallow that the Holy Spirit would have stopped preserving oral tradition the moment the ink was dry on the New Testament. This is why I believe that the Holy Spirit can keep the
Pope from error just like He kept the Apostles from error.

Another point. Catholics are constantly criticized for teaching things that are “not in the Bible.” Well, where did the Bible come from? More to the point, where did Martin Luther get his Bible?
Answer: He was a Catholic monk reading a Catholic Bible (specifically, the Latin Vulgate). Unlike some sects, who claim there was an ‘underground’ church ‘preserving’ the Bible, Luther got his Bible from the Catholic Church, a fact Martin Luther himself admits. It was handed down to him and others by several generations of monks who spent their lives copying and preserving Sacred Scripture. Now, here is another question. Why would the Catholic Church spend so much time and effort preserving a Bible that supposedly contradicted what she taught? I know the standard Protestant response (and I know, because it used to be mine) is that “the catholic church apostasized sometime after Constantine.” Well, if the church was apostate, then why didn’t it alter scripture to suit it’s fancy? If this was the case, it certainly wouldn’t have stopped at “adding” the “Apocrypha” to the O.T! It would have mutilated the existing Scriptures or added books that conformed to it’s teaching, like the JWs or Mormons do (incidentally, I understand Luther added ‘alone’ to Paul’s epistles to the Romans to make it fit his doctrine). Jesus himself tells us “for no good tree bears bad fruit nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by it’s fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns; nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6: 43-45, RSV-CE). If the Catholic Church is corrupt, then so is the new Testament. And you can’t explain it away with Protestant Theologian R.C. Sproul’s theory that the NT is a “fallible canon of infallible books.” That theory just won’t hold water: How do you know that the book you are reading in the Scriptures really belongs there, or that a book not included in the Scriptures is actually inspired? To me, this is just one more reason why I consider Protestantism to be shifting sand.

 

[hlgomez]

For example, is it really a mortal sin to miss Mass? You would really go to hell for that? It’s very unfortunate how these “doctrines” get formulated, which are just man’s rules passed off as God’s rules, and misrepresent the Gospel.

My answer to your question in line with the Church’s teaching is YES. The reason behind it is not merely man made rules but God’s. Missing the Mass is a violation of the 1st and 2nd of the 10 Commandments. The highest form of sin in the order of the 10 Commandments. Now, is it a mortal sin?
Mass is not merely a ritual based on man-made traditions invented by the Catholic CHurch. It is the very same Mass, in its essence, that were practiced going back to the Apostles! Mass is actually perpetuating the same and one sacrifice of Christ in Calvary, when Jesus Himself said “Do these in memory of me.” It is the highest form of worship, the summit of Christian life.

Pio

 

[ralphinal]

If Jesus felt the need (or knew the need) to pray that we be one, and St’ Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said that the Church was the pillar and bulwark of truth, then God knew that there would be Christian division but ONE CHURCH would be correct and defend the fulness of Truth.

As far as all of the things that Catholics have done, I say pull the plank from your own. There is no denomination, even one three minutes old, that has not had members behave in a way to cause scandle. Know why Jefferson wrote of a separation of CHurch and State? Because each colony had a dominant church that persicuted the smaller ones. Jefferson was friends with some of them in Virginia and tried to help. Remember for every Catholic priest or biship in sin, there is a protestant minister who is in the Klan, or who helped the Nazis, or who burned other protestant ministers during the 16th centrury, or killed innocent girls in Salem. Heck, the KKK even calls itself a CHRISTIAN organization!!! But you know what I’ve noticed? As a rule, Catholics rarely use that as a defence when a protestant says that we are not the true church because of the actions of our clergy. We try to defend the faith by the high road, as do most protestants on this site. I’ve seen very few who did not.

As far as sola scriptura goes, I do not want to get to heaven and argue with Jesus about what his words meant.

 

[RNRobert]

bernied:

What about a Church (called the Catholic church) that does Inquisitions and crusades, killing in the name of God, contrary to Jesus’ teachings? That can’t look good…

…Bernie (former catholic)
www.FreeGoodNews.com

Yes, there were abuses that occured with regard to the Crusades and Inquisitions, but you have to understand them in the context of the time in which they occured.
The Crusades: During the Middle Ages, Islam overran much of the Mediterranean world, converting people to it’s faith by the sword. This included many areas with Christian populations. An Eastern Orthodox bishop by the name of Kallistos Ware wrote a book about the history of the Eastern Orthodox church. In the book he tells of an Englishman who visited Greece in the 1830s after they won their freedom from the Turks. The Englishman said that the survival of Christianity after 4 centuries of Moslem rule was “nothing short of a miracle.” Moslem invaders reached even as far as Spain and Italy. The Crusades were organized in part to protect Western Christendom and push the invaders back.
Inquisition: There were at least two different inquisitions. One was in France and dealt with the Albigensians, who were a neo-Manichean sect that taught that marriage and childbirth was sinful, that fornication was Ok, and that suicide was noble. These beliefs threatened the very fabric of society (much like our current ‘culture of death’) and both the Church and secular government felt that this movement needed to be suppressed. As for the Spanish inquistion, it’s primary purpose was to root out ‘marranos’, Jews and Moslems who joined the church to gain influence in the government, not Jews and Moslems who remained Jews and Moslems. And you have to understand something about Spain of that period: It had fought hard to free itself of the Moslem invaders and as a result, being a Spaniard and being a Catholic were closely bound together, something we in a pluralistic society can’t grasp.
I should also point out that Protestant groups had no qualms about persecuting those who didn’t follow their beliefs: Luther approved of the secular government killing anabaptists, Calvin burned the unitarian Servetus and others who didn’t agree to his doctrines, and the Church of England went after those who didn’t follow it’s doctrine, whether they were Protestant or catholic. And lets not forget our founding fathers, the Puritans. Catholics, Quakers and others who entered their towns got short shrift (and let’s not forget the Salem witch trials, where people were imprisoned and executed on evidence too flimsy for even a Catholic Inquisitor to accept).

 

[hlgomez]

What about a Church (called the Catholic church) that does Inquisitions and crusades, killing in the name of God, contrary to Jesus’ teachings? That can’t look good…

Bernie, here’s my challenge to you.

1. Produce a authentic document with the dates and persons (even popes) who ordered the killings during the Inquisition and Crusades.
2. Decree from the Pope himself regarding those orders. Don’t forget the date and the name/s.

I understand so many history books are out there, but not everything is true. Some people will try to twist history to justify their dislike with the Catholic Church. And many of our separated brothers (esp. Protestants) take advantage of these sources to satisfy their hate towards the Catholic Church.

Again, with all honesty, and without bias, produce such documents, if indeed there is even one.

Pio

 

[RNRobert]

hlgomez:

My answer to your question in line with the Church’s teaching is YES. The reason behind it is not merely man made rules but God’s. Missing the Mass is a violation of the 1st and 2nd of the 10 Commandments. The highest form of sin in the order of the 10 Commandments. Now, is it a mortal sin?
Mass is not merely a ritual based on man-made traditions invented by the Catholic CHurch. It is the very same Mass, in its essence, that were practiced going back to the Apostles! Mass is actually perpetuating the same and one sacrifice of Christ in Calvary, when Jesus Himself said “Do these in memory of me.” It is the highest form of worship, the summit of Christian life.

Pio

I would like to add something to your observations. Jesus said in the sixth chapter of John’s gospel that his flesh and blood were real food and real drink, and that we would have no life unless we ate his flesh and drank his blood. As Catholics, you and I believe that the Eucharist is truly Jesus ‘body and blood, soul and divinity’ and that by partaking of it we obtain supernatural graces. As St Ignatius of Antioch writes in his Epistle to the Ephesians, the Eucharist is “the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore.”
Jesus also said in John 15:4-5 “Abide in me, and I and you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.” If we stop going to Mass, we cut ourselves off from Jesus. As the writer of Hebrews states: “…not neglecting to meet together as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” St. Ignatius also wrote in the same epistle mentioned above, “Anyone who absents himself from the congregation convicts himself of arrogance and becomes self-excommunicate.”

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Part 1

I can’t understand why the concept of papal infallibility is such a stumbling block to Protestants (and keep in mind I’m only talking about the Pope speaking in regard to faith or morals, not to his opinions or actions).

Probably for different reasons. However, that being stated, my point was not just that protestants have a problem with it, but that every other group of Christians do (Copts, EO’s, Anglicans & various other smaller groups). In this light the doctrine is clearly not an ecumenical one. It is in no accepted ancient creeds or general councils and has received reception only in churches in communion with Rome. Beyond the problem of reception, there is a broad historical issue that the doctrine requires a significant amount of justification via theories of development to even be viable, theories which many people do not accept. The issue of conciliar infallibility or a general, murky “infallibility of the church as a whole” is a different matter.

As I pointed out in my original post, the only thing the early Christians had to go on was oral tradition.

Are you sure? I would argue strongly that you are incorrect on this point. I would not take the simplistic route of arguing the bible dropped out of the sky like a rock the moment Christ ascended, but I would submit that some of the early NT scripture were in play soon after Christ’s ascension and there was broad agreement over the revelatory status of many NT books (primarily the gospels and the writings of Paul. Some of this evidence in is the NT itself, other bits in the somewhat cloudy history of the times.

If the Holy Spirit had been unable to preserve oral tradition from error, Christianity would have run off the rails from the get-go

.

I don’t doubt that God has generally protected it during the formation of the church. I just doubt that Some of what claims to be legitimate fruit of this tradition really is so.

I also find it hard to swallow that the Holy Spirit would have stopped preserving oral tradition the moment the ink was dry on the New Testament. This is why I believe that the Holy Spirit can keep the Pope from error just like He kept the Apostles from error.

Do you think this is the way the early church thought about the transmission of the faith and the way they knew truth about Christianity?

on to part II

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Part II

Another point. Catholics are constantly criticized for teaching things that are “not in the Bible.” Well, where did the Bible come from? More to the point, where did Martin Luther get his Bible?
Answer: He was a Catholic monk reading a Catholic Bible (specifically, the Latin Vulgate).

I agree that they were the agent of preservation for our biblical books. Men like Boethius and numerous lesser known scholars and monks presevred much of our early heritage through some of the darkest times in the Roman empire.

However, this really isn’t germane to the issue of whether Rome is teaching things that Go beyond the scriptures. I give great credit to Rome for her keeping the scriptures relatively pure. However, that doesn’t mean I have to discard objections when she goes beyond that pure tradition encased in the words of God in scripture.

Unlike some sects, who claim there was an ‘underground’ church ‘preserving’ the Bible, Luther got his Bible from the Catholic Church, a fact Martin Luther himself admits.

I agree such views are incorrect.

Why would the Catholic Church spend so much time and effort preserving a Bible that supposedly contradicted what she taught? I know the standard Protestant response (and I know, because it used to be mine) is that “the catholic church apostasized sometime after Constantine.”

Actually, I think that standard protestant response is not exactly convincing either. I think it’s much more realistic to argue that there existed in the church both a doctrine of scriptural sufficiency and a doctrine of extrascriptural tradition that expressed it’s authority in canon law and oral apostolic teachings held bythe bishops. As the church grew into the pre-reformation period this tension became explicit as the exponents of these systems of thought became more entrenched. The reformation formalized this split as Rome went one way and those who argued for scriptural sufficiency went the other. Of course, not everyone went one way or another and thus we still see one paticular example of this tension expressed even today in the Roman church between those who argue for material sufficiency vs. two-source theories of tradition.

All that being said, the church preserved the scripture because she had within her a strong stream of tradition regarding the sufficiency and supremacy of scripture. Even those who were less insistent on this knew the importance of scripture and therefore had every reason to preserve the very words of God. They would just argue that God had left another source beyond those scriptures that could be appealed to, apostolic tradition as preserved orally within the body of Christ, his church.

on to part III

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Part III

Well, if the church was apostate, then why didn’t it alter scripture to suit it’s fancy? If this was the case, it certainly wouldn’t have stopped at “adding” the “Apocrypha” to the O.T! It would have mutilated the existing Scriptures or added books that conformed to it’s teaching, like the JWs or Mormons do (incidentally, I understand Luther added ‘alone’ to Paul’s epistles to the Romans to make it fit his doctrine).

Well, there certainly were some illegitimate biblical glosses added during the history of the church and many mistakes. However, I think these were not the fault of the church hierarchy in most cases, but more likely expressions of the well-intentioned, though wrong copyists.

Jesus himself tells us “for no good tree bears bad fruit nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by it’s fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns; nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks” (Luke 6: 43-45, RSV-CE). If the Catholic Church is corrupt, then so is the new Testament.

I wouldn’t argue that. The catholic church has had it’s share of saints and sinners. God in His providence has used both to acheive his purposes in this world.

And you can’t explain it away with Protestant Theologian R.C. Sproul’s theory that the NT is a “fallible canon of infallible books.” That theory just won’t hold water: How do you know that the book you are reading in the Scriptures really belongs there, or that a book not included in the Scriptures is actually inspired?

Why not? It seems to me that your position is going to eventually cause you quite a few problems because you are setting up a standard for knowledge that is much too high. If you express this much skepticism how will your position hold when I apply the same stringent skepticism with regard to your truth claims? How do you know the church is who she is with absolute infallible certainty? If you don’t have infallible certainty, how can you know anything with certainty that uses this premise to establish truth?

Building a theory of knowledge on the necessity of infallible certainty is a one way ticket to either a chagrined skepticism or a know-nothing dogmatism. Our knowledge is proximate, yet certain. Think about it, every bit of knowledge we have in life is this way. When you read scripture, you read an accurate, though not absolutely perfect translation of the original, yet we still argue that we are reading the word of God. When you read a papal encyclical, you are reading a translation of the original Latin. You, of course, assume it is good enough to express the infallible teaching though the words you read are not the words of the teacher himself, but his translation. Again, fallible certainty does not lead one into skepticism unless you have such a high standard for certain knowldge that you make an epistemic house of cards.

ken

 

[Archbishop_10-K]

Props to RNRobert for the original posts. That’s the best refutation of “sola Scriptura” that I have seen thus far.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

bernied:

I’m into Sola Scriptura, but I’m not against tradition. Evangelicals have lots of different traditions also (like “altar calls” or talking about a “personal Savior” or even using the term “trinity”). The problem with Catholicism is not tradition, but tradition that is against sound doctrine, which actually makes it an enemy to the true faith.

For example, is it really a mortal sin to miss Mass? You would really go to hell for that? It’s very unfortunate how these “doctrines” get formulated, which are just man’s rules passed off as God’s rules, and misrepresent the Gospel. Someone will say what I just said about a mortal sin is not “doctrine.” Look, if it’s serious enough to make you go to hell, call it what you want, but realize it’s importance and impact. The truth is, rules such as that are just religious “legalisms” working against the Gospel of Grace.

Just my opinion…

…Bernie
www.FreeGoodNews.com

So, in your opinion, what makes a doctrine unsound? If the interpretation of Scripture is left to the individual alone, then one person’s sound doctrine will be another person’s “misinterpretation of Gospel.” For example, where some believe the necessity of water baptism for salvation is sound doctrine, others believe such a doctrine misapplies Scripture. Where some believe the doctrine of the Real Presence is sound others call it idolatry. Without an ultimate authority - i.e. the Magesterium of the Church - these differences will never by resolved, right?

In my opinion, the logic of sola scriptura cannot stand. Protestants are just fooling themselves by saying that they believe in the doctrine. What they really mean is that the Bible is the sole authority - because that’s what my pastor tells me. Refusal to acknowledge the Church as the ultimate authority for the interpretation of Scripture stems from - are you ready for this - the traditions of men who protest the religious authority of the True Church.

Your point about attending mass regularly is also not well taken. The CCC states the obligation as follows:

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

Note the rationale stated in the first sentence. The rule is not arbitrary. The rule underscores the importance of receiving the body of Our Lord regularly - as He commanded - to sustain us in our christian lives. It is grave sin to deliberately turn away from God, which is what *literally * happens when a person refuses to attend mass regularly. Thus, the obligation is acknowledged by the Church who sheperds its flock.

I believe the protestant failure to understand the Catholic obligation to attend mass stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of the celebration. The mass is more than just christian fellowship and communion. If you understood that, you would not belittle the obligation of attendance. Wouldn’t protestants also agree that an act of deliberately turning away from Jesus is an act of grave sin? If so, and they respected the Catholic belief in the Real Presence, then they would agree that it would be grave sin to deliberately miss Mass.

I say all of this in charity, and not to offend. I look forward to your response.

 

[Shibboleth]

I believe in “Sola Scriptura” and yet I do not see myself disagreeing with RnRobert on too many things. Luther did take the available bible at the time and tried to discern what was definitely inspired and what was not; however he wrote many many more things, as we all know. Why did he do this? Because he knew that other writing was important in understanding God. The thing that he disagreed with was the fact that we have the ability now to write things that are at par with the inspired scriptures.

C. S. Lewis said once that Christians don’t disagree on important matters so much as they disagree on what matters are most important.

Luther took and drew a line in the paper and said this is what Christ gave us and we do not need more. When I was a child I had a toy that had four shaped holes in which I could insert blocks. That toy had enough for me to discern what belonged to it, I could take one of my toys and try to slide it into the box, if it did not fit then it did not belong. Lutheran’s view that same with their canonized scripture. If a writing fits with the teachings of Christ then they are acceptable writings but those that do not fit do not belong. Here is the problem though; some things could go into my toy that did not belong because they were just close enough to the original shape to slide through. This is where the problem arises. Some things are not clear and the Catholic Church thinks that they can define those things, I am not sure if they can.

The biggest problem though arises when something does not fit with the Bible but someone takes a hammer and smashes it in anyways.

The thing to remember is though is that those things that definitely belong to the Bible will always fit just as the blocks that belong to the toy will always go through the holes.

 

[Al_Eluia]

RNRobert:

. . . the vast majority of Christians aren’t on a desert island.

Maybe some of them should be!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Dear Shibboleth:

In one of your earlier responses you noted what you believed to be a diverrgence within the Catholic Church between those who believed in the Bible as being “materially sufficient” versus those who believed in two separate and equal sources of Tradition (your exact language was (“material sufficiency vs. two-source theories of tradition”).

I’m curious, do you believe these two concepts to be mutually exclusive? In other words, can’t one believe that there are two separate primary sources for Tradition - Scriptural and Oral - but also believe that the Bible is *materially * sufficient because all doctrine is supported by it and not contrary to it?

My understanding of the Catholic position is that Oral Tradition is consistent with - and never contrary to - Scripture, and that Scripture is materially - but not doctrinally - sufficient. How is this position inconsistent with your understanding of sola scriptura as described above, other than a distinction between where - outside of the Bible - the authority to interpret Scripture lies?

P.S. I like your quote from D. Adams

 

[go_Leafs_go]

I don’t really have much to add, except I am really happy to see a civilized discussion without mudslinging or putting down per say of people’s beliefs. This has been a great thread.

 

[RNRobert]

Shibboleth:

Some things are not clear and the Catholic Church thinks that they can define those things, I am not sure if they can.

The biggest problem though arises when something does not fit with the Bible but someone takes a hammer and smashes it in anyways.

The thing to remember is though is that those things that definitely belong to the Bible will always fit just as the blocks that belong to the toy will always go through the holes.

The problem I have with this is that the Bible is a Catholic book (there were no Protestants until the 16th century) and for someone to say that the Catholic church can’t properly interpret it’s OWN BOOK is ludicrous.

II Paradox II wrote elsewhere on this thread that my eagerness for absolute certainty can lead to scepticism (I forget the exact quote).
My contention is that is what we HAVE in many parts of Christendom. Many Protestant churches don’t even believe in the inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth or the resurrection anymore (I feel that if Protestantism continues the way it’s going, it will eventually self-destruct). With so many churches teaching conflicting doctrine, it’s very easy for an honest searcher for truth to throw up his hands in despair and exclaim “who can know?” and stop seeking? How many people have lost faith, or perhaps even their souls, as a result? I think this is why atheism, subjectivism and moral relativism is so rampant today. I believe many people are looking for TRUTH, not some truth, or what someone thinks is truth, but for someone to say THIS, and not this is true.
II Paradox II asks, how I can be infallibly certain that the Catholic Church is right. Well, I’m not infallible. However, I know that Jesus founded A church, not a cluster of denominations, and that he would never leave it. Which church can lay claim to to that church? Well, the oldest Protestant churches didn’t even appear on the scene until the 16th century, so they can’t be it? What about the Eastern Orthodox churches? Their bishops can trace their lineage back to the apostles, and much of their teachings are similar to Catholicism (i.e. the seven sacraments, the Real Prescence in the Eucharist, the perpetual viriginity of Mary, etc.). However, their churches are pretty much restricted to certain ethnic groups (i.e. Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc.), which is all right if you belong to one of those ethnic groups, but how are such Churches so constrained able to bring the teachings of Christ to the whole world? To me only one answer is clear.

 

[Shibboleth]

Robert in SD:

Dear Shibboleth:

In one of your earlier responses you noted what you believed to be a diverrgence within the Catholic Church between those who believed in the Bible as being “materially sufficient” versus those who believed in two separate and equal sources of Tradition (your exact language was (“material sufficiency vs. two-source theories of tradition”).

I’m curious, do you believe these two concepts to be mutually exclusive? In other words, can’t one believe that there are two separate primary sources for Tradition - Scriptural and Oral - but also believe that the Bible is *materially * sufficient because all doctrine is supported by it and not contrary to it?

My understanding of the Catholic position is that Oral Tradition is consistent with - and never contrary to - Scripture, and that Scripture is materially - but not doctrinally - sufficient. How is this position inconsistent with your understanding of sola scriptura as described above, other than a distinction between where - outside of the Bible - the authority to interpret Scripture lies?

P.S. I like your quote from D. Adams

Some of what you are quoting is what I said and some of it must be from what someone else stated. Either way I don’t disagree so it does not matter. The only difference that I see between the two is that the Catholic Church claims that their other proclamations are inerrant or infallible, so if I were Catholic I could not say that I do not agree with something written by the Council of Trent.

Now I can and do claim that I disagree with some of the Lutheran doctrines but it is not a sin for me to do so. I think that humans make errors and that has led to the multiple denominations.

So the big difference is this, Lutheran documents exist to help understand and clarify the Biblical Scriptures – in the Catholic Church’s documents are in essence further scripture they just have not been placed in a single Book. The Catholic Church is a living Bible if you will.

 

[Shibboleth]

RNRobert:

The problem I have with this is that the Bible is a Catholic book (there were no Protestants until the 16th century) and for someone to say that the Catholic church can’t properly interpret it’s OWN BOOK is ludicrous.

I understand what you are saying by this but I disagree. Yes Tolstoy would understand War and Peace because he wrote the book, but his children, the editors, and the Russians do not necessarily have a better understanding of it than an educated American. So yes the Catholic Church compiled the writing that are in the Bible but the people that followed after the time of the Church fathers do not necessarily understand the Bible better.

Just because my Father writes something does not mean that I understand its purpose infallibly.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

RNRobert:

II Paradox II wrote elsewhere on this thread that my eagerness for absolute certainty can lead to scepticism (I forget the exact quote).

Just to be more clear, I am not a skeptic. However I do think there is a difference between seeking truth and seeking certainty. Truth can be found even if not known in an absolute undeniable way. My argument is that those who argue for the necessity of infallible knowledge in order to have any sort of useful knowledge at all are arguing within a worldview that will eventually let them down, leading to skepticism.

For example, a parallel might be the case of someone raised in a Christian family who is told that non-Christians are not good people. This worldview will of course be shattered when this child goes out into the world and sees this presumption is incorrect, leading this child to either dogmatically hold his premise that the world is totally evil or else come to doubt the whole system of knowledge he has grown up with, a form of skepticism.

I advance that systems of knowledge that argue for the necessity of infallible certainty in order to have knowledge are going to let down in exactly the same way because these positions only work when a limited set of data is taken into account. For example, John O’Brien’s argument you quoted earlier only works when his it is applied to a small set of knowledge claims. However, when his argument is applied to his own knowledge, it makes them just as uncertain. In the end, his argument only works when it is applied prejudicially or when it is applied so consistently that one is left believeing in virtually nothing.

ken

 

[RNRobert]

What I think it comes down to is this:

Catholics believe that the Church is a SUPERNATURAL institution, not a man-made one. To be more specific, the Church is the Body of Christ, and I cannot accept that a fractured Christianity can represent that one body. I believe that Jesus is able to keep his Body whole and intact and keep his Church from teaching error. If he cannot, then we’re in deep doo-doo, folks, and we’d have to look elsewhere for our salvation…:nope: