 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29th, 2007 07:21 pm |
|
I'm already RC. I had this thought which I have no answer for so thought I'd post here and ask others.
The Catholic Church frequently says that one of the ways one can see that it's teachings are true is because it agrees with the teachings of the early church fathers. However, I was just reading a letter written by Ignatius in early 100's which mentioned that already there were those who taught that the real prescence of Christ in the eucharist was not true. This led me to recall that other early writers like Origen are also discounted as early church fathers because their teachings disagree with those of the Catholic church.
So, the reasoning seems to go like this:
1. Trust the teachings of the Church today because they agree with those of the early church fathers?
2. Question: who are the early church fathers? anyone in the Church who wrote at an early time?
3. Answer: the early church fathers are those early writers which agree with the teachings of the Church.
This seems a bit circular. We can trust the teachings of the early church fathers because they agree with the teaching of the Catholic church. But the Church hand picked writers of that time period based on their agreement with Catholic teaching and named them as early church fathers.
So, it seems that logically an appeal to the early church fathers means nothing as it boils down to whatever the Catholic church now teaches (since others who disagreed were not included in the list of early church fathers).
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29th, 2007 08:05 pm |
|
| I know David or Rick will give a more complete answer to this good question. My thought is that the early church fathers were consistent with the teachings of Jesus concerning the Eucharist being His body and blood. Others who disagreed wouldn't be considered a part of the church would they? The church fathers were true to the teachings and didn't cause discord or heresy. In a sense, the "church" was the early church fathers, so it's not a matter of they had to pass a test or anything. Last edited on Sun Jul 29th, 2007 08:12 pm by Credo Catholic
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29th, 2007 08:27 pm |
|
Eric3141 wrote: The Catholic Church frequently says that one of the ways one can see that it's teachings are true is because it agrees with the teachings of the early church fathers. However, I was just reading a letter written by Ignatius in early 100's which mentioned that already there were those who taught that the real prescence of Christ in the eucharist was not true. This led me to recall that other early writers like Origen are also discounted as early church fathers because their teachings disagree with those of the Catholic church.
We look to the writings of the Early Church Fathers to see what they believed and practiced because they were taught by the apostles themselves, or by those taught by the apostles. We believe that the apostles were taught perfectly by Jesus, and given the fullness of truth by the Holy Spirit. The writings of the Fathers are as close as we can get to the apostles themselves.
When the Fathers are unanimous in their teaching, we believe it accurately represents what was believed, taught, and practiced by the apostles. As doctrine developed, unanimity among the Fathers represents the closest we can get to the Magisterium in the early Church.
The ECF are not the apostles, and their writings are neither infallible nor inspired. They are valid for study in the context of Scripture and Tradition as an additional resource, as are the later writings of the Doctors of the Church.
We don't believe things because the Fathers said so. We believe things because they are part of the Deposit of Faith handed on by Jesus to the apostles and then to us. We use the writings of the Fathers to help determine what is contained in that Deposit of Faith, but only when they do not contradict Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church, or each other.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29th, 2007 08:58 pm |
|
Ditto Marsha's reply.
I'm already RC. I had this thought which I have no answer for so thought I'd post here and ask others.
The Catholic Church frequently says that one of the ways one can see that it's teachings are true is because it agrees with the teachings of the early church fathers. However, I was just reading a letter written by Ignatius in early 100's which mentioned that already there were those who taught that the real prescence of Christ in the eucharist was not true. This led me to recall that other early writers like Origen are also discounted as early church fathers because their teachings disagree with those of the Catholic church.
Origen is considered a Church Father. The Church has always followed Scripture's council:
1 Thessalonians 5
21 But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Origen's writings were examined, that which is good was kept, that which is wrong was discarded. Origen's influence on the Church is inestimable.
So, the reasoning seems to go like this:
1. Trust the teachings of the Church today because they agree with those of the early church fathers?
Nope. Because the Church is infallible.
2. Question: who are the early church fathers? anyone in the Church who wrote at an early time?
Nope.
Per the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It follows that, as our own Fathers are the predecessors who have taught us, so the Fathers of the whole Church are especially the earlier teachers, who instructed her in the teaching of the Apostles, during her infancy and first growth.
3. Answer: the early church fathers are those early writers which agree with the teachings of the Church.
Your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. The Church has always used the three legged stool. Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture. The Early Church Fathers, like Origen, endeavored to pass on Tradition from the Apostles. The Church weighed their teaching to Tradition as it was passed on by other Church Fathers and to Scripture as it was interpreted by other Church Fathers.
This seems a bit circular.
Therefore, your conclusion is wrong.
We can trust the teachings of the early church fathers because they agree with the teaching of the Catholic church. But the Church hand picked writers of that time period based on their agreement with Catholic teaching and named them as early church fathers.
No. The Apostles picked faithful men and taught them the truth of Jesus Christ, which they in turn taught to other faithful men capable of teaching. The first of these men are they whom we call the Church Fathers.
So, it seems that logically an appeal to the early church fathers means nothing as it boils down to whatever the Catholic church now teaches (since others who disagreed were not included in the list of early church fathers).
Thoughts?
You are correct about one thing. Even the Church Fathers are not infallibe, apart from the Church.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 11:34 pm |
|
Yet very often Catholic apologists quote early church fathers teachings as support for Catholic beliefs. This can easily be seen in Catholic Answers' publication This Rock which has a column called "The Fathers Know Best". They will articulate the Church's teaching on a doctrinal issue like the eucharist (to use one example) then give quotes from the fathers to show this teaching was held from the beginning. Yet there were other early writers who dissented on this issue and others.
My point is that Catholic apologists *very often* use the above approach. Yet it seems to reduce to this:
The real prescence (or any other Catholic doctrine) is true.
We can see this because it was taught by the fathers.
Q: Who are the fathers?
A: Those who taught the real prescence of Christ in the eucharist.
This is circular logic.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 12:04 am |
|
Eric3141 wrote: Yet very often Catholic apologists quote early church fathers teachings as support for Catholic beliefs.
But what you have missed is the reason. Many accuse the Catholic Church of "inventing" doctrine. For example, it is claimed that the doctrine of the Assumption was "invented" in 1950, or that the so-called "apocrypha" was added to the Bible at the Council of Trent. Quotes from the Fathers show that these beliefs and teachings were held by the early Church, and so it is part of the Deposit of Faith handed on to us by the apostles. The books that make up the Catholic bible have been part of the Canon of Scripture since the fourth century (and generally accepted even earlier), and belief in the Assumption goes back as far as written records.
The purpose of quoting the Fathers is to show that doctrines have been consistently held since the earliest days of the Church. It is not "circular logic" because it is only used to show the consistency of doctrine.
You cite the Real Presence. We don't take that belief from the Fathers. We take it from the Gospel of John and the Letters of Paul, as well as other scripture, both Hebrew and Christian. We use the writings of the Fathers to show that they accepted the same belief in the Real Presence that we hold today. It proves that the belief in the Real Presence is 2000 years old. Not every early writer held that belief, of course, but those few who didn't were denounced by the overwhelming majority who did. Not every writer today believes in the Real Presence, but those relatively few who don't are denounced by the majority who do. More than a billion and a half Christians believe in the Real Presence; considerably less than half a billion do not. That's less than 25%. The writings of the Fathers show us that the situation has not changed since the earliest days of the Church. The majority still believe in the Real Presence, and the majority still denounce the few who fail to discern the Body and the Blood.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Eric3141
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Bardstown, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 17 |
| First Name: | Eric | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic revert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 12:31 am |
|
CajunRick wrote: Eric3141 wrote: Yet very often Catholic apologists quote early church fathers teachings as support for Catholic beliefs.
We use the writings of the Fathers to show that they accepted the same belief in the Real Presence that we hold today. It proves that the belief in the Real Presence is 2000 years old. Not every early writer held that belief, of course, but those few who didn't were denounced by the overwhelming majority who did.
I hadn't thought of that - that's a good point.
Not every writer today believes in the Real Presence, but those relatively few who don't are denounced by the majority who do. More than a billion and a half Christians believe in the Real Presence; considerably less than half a billion do not.
Ref. those who do not believe in the real presence: if the polls can be believed then you must be referencing Catholics in the country.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 04:39 pm |
|
aEric3141 wrote: Ref. those who do not believe in the real presence: if the polls can be believed then you must be referencing Catholics in the country.
I am referring to those who are members of Churches which teach the Real Presence and have valid sacraments. Whether individual members accept the teachings of their Churches is another issue entirely.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 11:32 am |
|
You really have to look at the context of the church father's writings. Ignations, in the passage you mentioned, the one speaking of those who deny the Real Presense, was denouncing heretics. These heretics were the gnostics. The gnostics denied that Jesus really came to earth in the flesh, saying he was merely an apparation, as, they said, all flesh was evil. There were heretics back then, true, but the Church always legitimately refuted heretics, based on the Truth, and it was the Church that endured. So, you will find the ocassional early church father turned heretic, but such a one is discounted not because he disagrees with what the Church today teaches, but because he disagrees with the Truth. Everyone today, including protestants, admits that the gnostics were heretics in the true sense of the word. They were just plain wrong. Here is the quote from Ignatius regarding their treatment of the Eucharist:
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ"
Notice that their refusal to believe in the Real Presense stems from their refusal to believe that Christ actually came to earth in the flesh. Also, notice that they don't pray either, and they don't just disbelieve the Real Presense, they simply don't take the Lord's Supper at all! Thus, they weren't modern day protestants ("it's just symbolic") at all. Plus, this is also important: Ignatius writes with horror of the gnostics denying the Real Presense, and expects the Smyrnians, to whom he is writing, to share his horror. Plus, he wrote this in 110. So, by 110, all those in the church (the gnostics, not believing Christ came to the earth as a man, weren't in the Church and were, as everyone agrees today, wrong) believed in the Real Presense with a passion. This is what speaks of the truth of the Catholic view of the Eucharist.
I hope that helps.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
knitter
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Aug 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | West Coast, USA |
| Posts: | 10 |
| First Name: | knitter | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist-Neo Pagan-Buddhist-Heretic-Questor |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 12:58 pm |
|
Yes, it's circular. It's one of those little things Christians of all flavors don't like to admit. They also don't like to admit that the Bible itself was composed of the texts written hundreds of years after Jesus lived, that supported a particular doctrine, and everything else declared heresy. They don't want to see that these texts themselves were written to support particular beliefs, and changed over the centuries, sometimes accidentally sometimes intentionally. Read "Lost Christianities" and "Misquoting Jesus" both by Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar who started as a bible thumping fundy, then realized what he thought the bible said is so not what it really says.
These facts don't have to threaten anyone's faith - in fact, they have restored mine. Even though the bible doesn't speak on many issues of Catholic doctrine, when the growth of the church is seen organically, rooted in history and growing from Jewish, Greek, and Roman sensibilities, it makes sense and doesn't offend the intelligence. Religion is poetry, not prose. Worrying about if this verse contradicts that verse is prosaic and fruitless, if it prevents you from experiencing the living Christ within you.
Many people worry if a doctrine is "true", ie historically factual. I wonder if a doctrine is "useful" - that is, does it further the growth of faith and a Christ-like nature within me. This is actually a scientific perspective rather than religious, which is totally funny to me. Using the tools of science to "prove" the validity of religion. So as an example, the theory of the Real Presence. If the theory is true, then consuming the Eucharist will bring the actual body of Christ inside my own body, inside my cells, gradually replacing Me with Jesus, physically. If the theory is not true, then the Eucharist is a commemorative ritual that might be "nice" but has no lasting effect. Which view is more "useful" in growing the Christ within?
imho.
____________________
~.~.~
The kingdom of God is among you.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 01:52 pm |
|
Yes, it's circular.
No, its not.
It's one of those little things Christians of all flavors don't like to admit.
Its one of those things that nonCatholics of all flavors don't understand.
They also don't like to admit that the Bible itself was composed of the texts written hundreds of years after Jesus lived, that supported a particular doctrine, and everything else declared heresy.
You might want to:
2 Timothy 2
15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
So far, all you are doing is making uninformed statements and drawing false conclusions.
The fact is that the Gospels were written within 70 years of Jesus death and resurrection. The fact is that three of them were written by eyewitnesses and the fourth, Luke, was written by a Physician who interviewed eyewitnesses.
So, if you claim that the New Testament was not written within the life of the Apostles, present your evidence. I can assure you that all you have is uininformed conjecture.
They don't want to see that these texts themselves were written to support particular beliefs, and changed over the centuries, sometimes accidentally sometimes intentionally.
Lets go each belief point by point. You will see that you are wrong.
Read "Lost Christianities" and "Misquoting Jesus" both by Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar who started as a bible thumping fundy, then realized what he thought the bible said is so not what it really says.
No need to. You've read it. Present his arguments. We'll show you why he is wrong.
These facts don't have to threaten anyone's faith - in fact, they have restored mine.
That is wonderful. Wait til you understand your faith and you'll be euphoric. Because up to this point you've shown a dismal understanding of what the Church teaches.
Even though the bible doesn't speak on many issues of Catholic doctrine,
The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church whose doctrines correspond perfectly to the Bible. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament.
when the growth of the church is seen organically, rooted in history and growing from Jewish, Greek, and Roman sensibilities, it makes sense and doesn't offend the intelligence. Religion is poetry, not prose. Worrying about if this verse contradicts that verse is prosaic and fruitless, if it prevents you from experiencing the living Christ within you.
Its wonderful that you believe although you don't understand. But please keep your misunderstandings to yourself. Or study and set your understanding aright.
Many people worry if a doctrine is "true", ie historically factual.
Because doctrine is important:
Ephesians 4
14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.
Because Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Because the Truth will set you free. Christ is Truth. If it isn't true, it isn't Christ's.
I wonder if a doctrine is "useful" - that is, does it further the growth of faith and a Christ-like nature within me.
In other words, a prescription for Cafeteria Catholicism. Do you recite the Creed on Sundays without meaning what you are praying? Or do you leave it out of your prayers all together?
Catholicism is not about how you or I or anyone else wants to worship and understand God. It is about how God wants to be understood and worshipped.
This is actually a scientific perspective rather than religious, which is totally funny to me.
It should be funny, because it is the farthest thing from scientific.
Using the tools of science to "prove" the validity of religion. So as an example, the theory of the Real Presence. If the theory is true, then consuming the Eucharist will bring the actual body of Christ inside my own body, inside my cells, gradually replacing Me with Jesus, physically.
False "if/then". Who said that "The Eucharist will replace you with Jesus physically". That is another theory of yours. It is not a fact. Jesus Himself says, "the Spirit is life and truth." Meaning that His Flesh and Blood in the Holy Eucharist are a Sacramental (mysterious) and actual presence which bring about a Spiritual reality. When we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, we put on Christ Spiritually.
If the theory is not true, then the Eucharist is a commemorative ritual that might be "nice" but has no lasting effect. Which view is more "useful" in growing the Christ within?
The Church's teaching. Yours is the meandering of an undisciplined mind. First accept the discipline of the Catholic Church. Your meanderings will not only get you into trouble, but also any who listen to you:
1 Timothy 4
16 Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.
1 Timothy 1
5 Now the end of the commandment is charity, from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith.
2 Peter 2
1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
I'm sorry. You sound sincere, but you are completely wrong.
Sincerely,
Juan
Last edited on Fri Aug 10th, 2007 01:53 pm by Juan
|
|
|
knitter
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Aug 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | West Coast, USA |
| Posts: | 10 |
| First Name: | knitter | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist-Neo Pagan-Buddhist-Heretic-Questor |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 02:36 pm |
|
| Juan, you misunderstand me. I am speaking of the mystical experience of "putting on Christ" and you are quoting scripture to support the ortho-doxy and ortho-praxy of Catholic doctrine. Using scripture to prove the rightness of scripture is by definition circular logic. I am saying that logic is irrelevant to the mystical experience and this is supported in the world's great mystical literature. It's a mystery because it can't be explained with logic, no matter how orthodox the logic is. Read St John of the Cross, Meister Eckhard, and Teresa of Avila.
____________________
~.~.~
The kingdom of God is among you.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 03:30 pm |
|
Juan, you misunderstand me. I am speaking of the mystical experience of "putting on Christ" and you are quoting scripture to support the ortho-doxy and ortho-praxy of Catholic doctrine. Using scripture to prove the rightness of scripture is by definition circular logic. I am saying that logic is irrelevant to the mystical experience and this is supported in the world's great mystical literature. It's a mystery because it can't be explained with logic, no matter how orthodox the logic is. Read St John of the Cross, Meister Eckhard, and Teresa of Avila.
I certainly hope that I did misunderstand you. What I understood you to say was not Catholicism.
But please explain how I misunderstood these words:
They also don't like to admit that the Bible itself was composed of the texts written hundreds of years after Jesus lived, that supported a particular doctrine, and everything else declared heresy.
Church history is clear on when each book of the New Testament was written.
And how should I take these words which seem to imply that the Church does not teach the Word of God, the absolute truth and deposit of faith which Jesus left to the Apostles and they in turn to the Church?
They don't want to see that these texts themselves were written to support particular beliefs, and changed over the centuries, sometimes accidentally sometimes intentionally.
Sincerely,
Juan
Last edited on Fri Aug 10th, 2007 03:37 pm by Juan
|
|
|
knitter
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Aug 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | West Coast, USA |
| Posts: | 10 |
| First Name: | knitter | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist-Neo Pagan-Buddhist-Heretic-Questor |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 05:53 pm |
|
Juan, I'm sure we don't need to argue biblical infalibility here. Scholars have spent centuries finding thousands of discrepencies between manuscripts, and they are well published elsewhere. We don't have the original texts of any of the books of the Bible, just ones that were scribed much later (which is what I meant when I said they were written later. Bad choice of words.) The Catholic Church is not Sola Scriptura, so it's not something to argue about anyway. All I'm saying is that by the rules of logic, using scripture (or the authors of scripture) to prove the validity of scripture is, in fact, circular logic. I'm not attacking the Church, I'm just saying if you want to "prove" scripture is valid, find another method.
From New Advent:
"The Bible is plainly a literature, that is, an important collection of writings which were not composed at once and did not proceed from one hand, but rather were spread over a considerable period of time and are traceable to different authors of varying literary excellence. As a literature, too, the Bible bears throughout the distinct impress of the circumstances of place and time, methods of composition, etc., in which its various parts came into existence, and of these circumstances careful account must be taken, in the interests of accurate scriptural interpretation. As a literature, our sacred books have been transcribed during many centuries by all manner of copyists to the ignorance and carelessness of many of whom they still bear witness in the shape of numerous textual errors, which, however, but seldom interfere seriously with the primitive reading of any important dogmatic or moral passage of Holy Writ. "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm
Last edited on Fri Aug 10th, 2007 06:14 pm by knitter
____________________
~.~.~
The kingdom of God is among you.
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 09:33 pm |
|
Juan, I'm sure we don't need to argue biblical infalibility here.
Why would I argue? I believe the Church teaching that Scripture is inerrant. You are the one contesting it. If you disagree, then you are the one arguing. I uphold the Catholic Teaching.
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."
Or did you somehow get the impression that this forum was for people who want to challenge Catholic Teaching?
Scholars have spent centuries finding thousands of discrepencies between manuscripts, and they are well published elsewhere. We don't have the original texts of any of the books of the Bible, just ones that were scribed much later (which is what I meant when I said they were written later. Bad choice of words.) The Catholic Church is not Sola Scriptura, so it's not something to argue about anyway. All I'm saying is that by the rules of logic, using scripture (or the authors of scripture) to prove the validity of scripture is, in fact, circular logic. I'm not attacking the Church, I'm just saying if you want to "prove" scripture is valid, find another method.
And, I said, study to show yourself approved.
1. The validity of Scripture is a different idea than the accurate copying or transcription of Scripture.
The Catholic Church does not test the "validity" of Scripture. She tests the validity of your or anyone else's interpretation of Scripture. For example, Luther's doctrine of Scripture alone. A review of Scripture will show that this doctrine is not valid as it is not taught in Scripture.
However, the Catholic Church does verify the accurate transcription of Bibles. This is done by comparing to ancient manuscripts to ensure that the copy is done precisely and correctly transferring the meaning of words and ideas.
Please provide evidence that the Church
2. The accurate copying of Scripture is a different matter than the inerrancy of Scripture. God insured against the ill effects of copyists errors by providing us an infallible Church. The inerrancy of Scripture deals with the inspired nature of the Spiritual message which God gave us through the Apostles.
From New Advent:
"The Bible is plainly a literature, that is, an important collection of writings which were not composed at once and did not proceed from one hand, but rather were spread over a considerable period of time and are traceable to different authors of varying literary excellence. As a literature, too, the Bible bears throughout the distinct impress of the circumstances of place and time, methods of composition, etc., in which its various parts came into existence, and of these circumstances careful account must be taken, in the interests of accurate scriptural interpretation. As a literature, our sacred books have been transcribed during many centuries by all manner of copyists to the ignorance and carelessness of many of whom they still bear witness in the shape of numerous textual errors, which, however, but seldom interfere seriously with the primitive reading of any important dogmatic or moral passage of Holy Writ. "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm
From that very same article:
The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.
Therefore, New Advent also believes in the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture and does not support your assertion that the Scriptures were written to support pre-determined and fluctuating doctrines.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Racaela Fultz
Member
| Joined: | Sat Aug 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 146 |
| First Name: | Racaela | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Nondenominational, will be Catholic Advent 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 09:41 pm |
|
You know, there is something I used to think circular. I thought the Church said: The Church is infallible because the Bible says so and the Bible is infallible because the Church says so. It doesn't, though.
I heard it explained like this: First we look at the Bible as a collection of historical documents. These documents are authentic and reliable (we have to determine that, but arrive at that conclusion), and what we see in them is Christ setting up the Church, setting it up to be infallible. So, now we have an infallible Church. Then, we know, historically, that this infallible Church has declared the Bible to be infallible. Thus, we believe that the Bible is infallible. It's not circular at all.
I don't know if that really adds anything to the discussion at hand, but I found it helpful.
____________________
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant" - Cardinal Newman
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1212 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10th, 2007 10:26 pm |
|
| There is a flaw in the reasoning here. I can't get a grasp on it, unless it is that neither the church nor scripture can validate each other without the divine revelation of God in each of them. Is that where faith comes in? If there is a way to logically explain this, emphatically, then why do we need faith? I don't mean a brainless kind of acceptance, because we do have not only the earliest manuscripts of scripture, but also supporting documents which are not scripture. We have accounts of the earliest Christians and their mass, and their celebration of the Eucharist, in documents outside of scripture. It's not circular, it's revelation. We can't think of the Bible as just literature, or just historical documents. The new testament was just that. A testament of the inspired word of God, written by the early church, which was the body of Christ. They can't be separated enough to be circular. In my opinion.
|
|
|
RCWarrior
Banned
| Joined: | Tue Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 105 |
| First Name: | stefany | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | I am a Devout Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 05:35 pm |
|
| Just my two cents..Juan, I think your answers were absolutely correct and exactly what I would of said. You know your faith and you are a truely devout and intelligent Catholic. It is what it is.
____________________
I know God won't give me anything I can't handle; I just wish he didn't trust me so much---Mother Teresa
If you invoke The Blessed Virgin when you are tempted, she will come at once to your help, and Satan will leave you----St. John Vianney
|
|
|
Current time is 01:13 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
