Brain fry


#1

I should have taken Karl’s advice on the Journey Home, not to engage, but I stuck my foot in it. I got this from an anti-Catholic site www.thebereans.net , on their forum, where one of them quotes this site. :

**<<Taken from: **http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Italics mine:

The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Summarizing it: the Bible is inspired because the church of Rome says so, the Church of Rome is correct in recognizing the Bible’s inspiration because the Bible says so. How convenient! >>

I don’t know if having to deal with their arguements (Exactly in the sequence that Karl said it would happen.) and irrationality has fried my brains, but does any of the above reasoning make ANY sense?


#2

[quote=lupel]I
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Summarizing it: the Bible is inspired because the church of Rome says so, the Church of Rome is correct in recognizing the Bible’s inspiration because the Bible says so. How convenient! >>

I don’t know if having to deal with their arguements (Exactly in the sequence that Karl said it would happen.) and irrationality has fried my brains, but does any of the above reasoning make ANY sense?
[/quote]

Th following is misworded and when used like it is opens the door to a twisted path.

Summarizing it: the Bible is inspired because the church of Rome says so, the Church of Rome is correct in recognizing the Bible’s inspiration because the Bible says so. How convenient! >>

The Bible is not Inspired because the Church of Rome say’s so. It is Inspired because God is the author it. Just as the Apostolic Tradition given to the Church is also Inspired because it is given by God. The same applies to authority. The authority of the Scriptures is not from the Church and the authority of the Church is not from the Scriptures. They are both given authority by God!


#3

Dear lupel,

It isn’t about making sense; it is about believing in what we do not see.

If things made “sense” in a scientific, mathematical, or logical way, then we would need no faith because we have “seen” it with our earthly faculties.

People seem to think that faith means they have a bulletproof argument for something. That is backwards. Faith comes in when there is not overwhelming evidence but we still believe.

Those who believe in Church’s teachings say the Catholic Church has authority on earth because Jesus specifically gave it to her. That’s all fine and wonderful, but it is the weak in faith who think there absolutely must be a logical explanation for it.

Thomas was weak in faith, but he believed because he saw. Those who truly have faith are confident in it and can watch and help others struggling with the faith, without thinking that they have all the answers to convince any reasonable person (or put another way that anyone who doesn’t buy their arguments is unreasonable).

The faith itself is the evidence. Note this doesn’t say, "now faith means you strive to convince another person that there is overwhelming logical evidence.

If you don’t think it makes sense, then you have embraced at least part of the truth. Thomas correctly ascertained that the story of the other apostles didn’t make sense – on paper, anyway. If the other apostles could have provided him with irrefutable DNA evidence, for example, then Jesus’ response to him would not have been needed If we are to “show” others the wounds so they may believe in Christ we have to take up His cross, love one another, bear with each other patiently, and we will become an effective witness for Him.

Alan


#4

Certainly the absolute truth of whether the Bible is inspired is independent of the Church’s claims.

The point I was making in my post (which I submitted before I saw your response to lupel) might be more precisely described as pertinent to the evidence of this inspiration. To the worldly mind, the Catholic Church’s say so is all we really have as evidence, and to that mind it is not necessarily convincing.

Authority can come from many sources in many forms, but if the “authorit-ee” doesn’t not buy into it, then that authority is worthless. For example, just because somebody put me in charge, doesn’t mean that I will be able to exercise that authority – it requires the submission of the will of those over whom that authority is presumably to be exercised.

In other words, the Church’s authority, even if God given, has no effectiveness on earth whatsoever unless that authority is accepted by fallible human beings. Therefore I’m asserting the primary source of the Church’s authority ON EARTH is the faith of her followers. Other points of view may be equally valid, of course, because I know my mind is pretty worldly. :o

Alan


#5

[quote=lupel]Summarizing it: the Bible is inspired because the church of Rome says so, the Church of Rome is correct in recognizing the Bible’s inspiration because the Bible says so. How convenient! >>
[/quote]

The argument using Matt. 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15 are for people who already accept Scripture as authority (or for whom Scripture is the only acceptable authority). If you want to show the authority of the Church without quoting Scripture, then you have to look at history. How do we know the Catholic Church is the authority? Because Jesus told his apostles who told their students who told their students…etc. Now, how do we know this passing down of Tradition hasn’t been corrupted along the way? Well, we can see that the earliest Christians held beliefs that today would be called Catholic.

catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp


#6

Go to posts 13 & 14 in this thread: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=48008&highlight=arnold


#7

[quote=Genesis315]The argument using Matt. 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15 are for people who already accept Scripture as authority (or for whom Scripture is the only acceptable authority). If you want to show the authority of the Church without quoting Scripture, then you have to look at history. How do we know the Catholic Church is the authority? Because Jesus told his apostles who told their students who told their students…etc. Now, how do we know this passing down of Tradition hasn’t been corrupted along the way? Well, we can see that the earliest Christians held beliefs that today would be called Catholic.

catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp
[/quote]

In those “historical” points, though, aren’t the primary sources of them scripture and tradition?

Alan


#8

Fried brains are actually pretty good. Especially pig brians, they make great sandwiches.


#9

Karl, in his book on Fundamentalism, states that one first looks at the bible as a historical document. Strictly historically, the bible states that Jesus founded a Church with authority. That Church then authoritatively recognized which books were Diinely inspired. It’s not circular, as they try to make it look, but linear.


#10

[quote=AlanFromWichita]In those “historical” points, though, aren’t the primary sources of them scripture and tradition?

Alan
[/quote]

Letters and documents from the 1st and 2nd century AD survive that are NOT considered scripture but support these claims. A good book I read is “Four Witnesses.” It discusses Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Iraeneus of Lyons. The epistles and books they wrote are amazing!

So you can see that there are historical sources which are not scripture …

amazon: amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898708478/qid=1113580832/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/103-1557274-2967026?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.