Sources of Catholic authority

[nmoerbeek]

A thousand times this, which is the basis for all of Catholicism and which could have ended the various 22 pages threads consisting of extremely warm air.

Your objection to the so-called circular argument of Sedes is, in fact, an objection to the same so-called circular argument of the Faithful Catholic.  Your argument can be used to question the entire teaching and authority of the Church, and not just Sedevacantism.

As I have said, it is Faith that breaks the circle. I believe that the Church has been given the Divine mandate to proclaim and teach the Catholic Faith without error in order to bring souls to Heaven.  Why?  Because the Church teaches it.  And why do I believe what the Church teaches.  Because Faith has led me to accept the authority of the Church.

So-called epistemology (yes, I know what it is; I was trained in philosophy) is not the basis of faith in the Roman Catholic Church and her doctrines, nor is it a check against that faith.  Jesus Christ, the founder of His Church, is not subject to human epistemology.   He contains all truths and all knowledge within Himself.  He doesn't need to be "verified,"  examined,  or analyzed to death, as He was already crucified once.  Any other "understanding" of the Faith is enormous arrogance.

Faith is circular because Jesus Christ completes the circle, being as he is the Alpha and the Omega, both.  But I'm sure that wasn't taught in N.O. catechesis.

He did say up above:

"It might seem subjective and a strong claim at first glance, due to the strong anti-Modernist polemic, but it is not.  I said revelation or experience.  Grace from God is necessary.  The presence of grace is the only observable difference between a world in which Christianity is false (with the same exterior evidence) and one in which it is true.  How to know grace is present?  It must be experienced on an individual level.  And what is grace but, on some level, an revealing of God in a certain sense albeit through a glass darkly: a share in His own life.  This is far removed from the subjective religious emotional experience of Modernists and Protestants."

Which is very similar to what you just said.  I don't believe that anyone here is arguing with Peter Alberlard that faith can come from reason. 

One of the things that is being overlooked I believe in this discussion is the Holiness of the Church. Meaning the visible marks of favor on the Catholic Church that are unique to it such as the miracles.  The Power of our Lord Jesus Christ over nature becomes manifest. 

Such as this Eucharistic Miracle:
http://tinyurl.com/nqve3b5


Or we could say Fatima, or this local miracle in San Francisco http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/11/17/holy-cross-catholic-church-nearly-100-year-old-san-jose-church-burns-parishioners-call-it-a-miracle-when-crucifix-survives/. 

[MyrnaM]

And what is grace but, on some level, an revealing of God in a certain sense albeit through a glass darkly: a share in His own life.

We receive said grace through humility, prayer, and asking for it.  "Seek and you shall find"  We received grace through the teachings from the Church, Scripture and Tradition, the Deposit of Faith.  If there is ever a question about the Faith, we always go back to the beginning.  If you want to call that circular so be it!  Yet it is straight as an arrow back to Christ.  Apostolic!

To believe otherwise is to say, that God did not keep His promise of perpetuity since it had to have a new start with Vatican II. (A new fresh beginning, etc. etc.)

[Quaremerepulisti]

No, Quaremere.  It is your argument against Sedevacantism that saws off the branch most of Catholicism sits on.

Why do I accept what the Church teaches?  Because the Church teaches it, that's why.  A circular argument you say.  Then why do I believe it?

Because Christ gave to His Church the authority and protection to teach the Faith without error.  But who says so?  The Catholic Church.  There's that circle again.

Your objection to the so-called circular argument of Sedes is, in fact, an objection to the same so-called circular argument of the Faithful Catholic.  Your argument can be used to question the entire teaching and authority of the Church, and not just Sedevacantism.

I will just note for the record that you have done a complete 180-degree turn from calling my argument ridiculous and not believing that anyone could possibly be arguing this way and how dare I think I refuted Fr. Cekada after being given the quotes from Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn.  Now you fully embrace that the argument for Sedevacantism is circular without, of course, honestly admitting that your brash confidence that it was not was completely unfounded.

But will you honestly admit defeat?  Of course not.  Instead now you say yes it's circular, but why care.  You make a false equivalence between the argument for sedevacantism and the rest of Catholicism, simply because it is possible to make a circular argument for Catholicism.  If what you posted above passes for "apologetics" these days, it's no wonder there are few converts.  (For the record, there is a huge difference between saying it is possible to make a circular argument for something, and calling one out for actually making a circular argument about something.)

As I have said, it is Faith that breaks the circle. I believe that the Church has been given the Divine mandate to proclaim and teach the Catholic Faith without error in order to bring souls to Heaven.  Why?  Because the Church teaches it.  And why do I believe what the Church teaches.  Because Faith has led me to accept the authority of the Church.

Does Faith tell you directly who the Pope is?  If not, then the argument for Catholicism is not circular whereas the argument for sedevacantism still is.

[Quaremerepulisti]

A thousand times this, which is the basis for all of Catholicism and which could have ended the various 22 pages threads consisting of extremely warm air.

So let me get this straight: you accept that a circular argument for sedevacantism is just A-OK?

So-called epistemology (yes, I know what it is; I was trained in philosophy) is not the basis of faith in the Roman Catholic Church and her doctrines, nor is it a check against that faith.  Jesus Christ, the founder of His Church, is not subject to human epistemology.   He contains all truths and all knowledge within Himself.  He doesn't need to be "verified,"  examined,  or analyzed to death, as He was already crucified once.  Any other "understanding" of the Faith is enormous arrogance.

Faith is circular because Jesus Christ completes the circle, being as he is the Alpha and the Omega, both.  But I'm sure that wasn't taught in N.O. catechesis.

And that, because you think a circular argument for Faith is A-OK under the pretext that "Jesus... is not subject to human epistemology"?  And you're outraged a circular argument isn't taught in N.O. catechesis?

[Non Nobis]

I reject the claim that we know true Popes because they teach true religious doctrine.

...[circular Sede view] And you know someone is the Pope because he teaches true religious doctrine, and you know those doctrines are true because that's what the Pope taught.

If (at the time of St.  Peter) someone claimed to be St. Peter but said something contrary to what Christ said, you would know it was not truly St.  Peter.  You use your reason to detect a fraud, you don't just say "because St. Peter said it it is true".  Teaching based (as Catholic doctrine must be) on past truth cannot contradict it, even if it makes it more explicit.  Looking back with reason at what was said before is a part of detecting truth, NOT just accepting the speaker's word, when the speaker (apparent Pope) may be a fraud. If Catholic teaching sprung up randomly, it would be different, but there is a development of the doctrine taught by Christ and it is possible to see a departure from legitimate development.  No, you can't always be right, but that means reason is imperfect, not that you should abandon it.

When  Popes were more consistent/non-contradictory it was right that Catholics should rest easy; but that doesn't mean they had no need to be alert.

Maybe Christ's promises make fraudulent Popes impossible, but that is a further discussion.

Again,

I reject the claim that we know true Popes because they teach true religious doctrine.

...[circular Sede view] And you know someone is the Pope because he teaches true religious doctrine, and you know those doctrines are true because that's what the Pope taught.

I am saying that the circular supposed Sede view is not the true Sede view.
The true Sede view (as I would understand it) is that true religious doctrine, AND (probably) the verification of Pope-N, is not known solely by a supposed-Pope N saying it, but by also being able to see no clear contradictions with what Pope N-1 said with what Pope N-2 said.. and so on until Christ. Reason can cross-check the verity of what is CLAIMED to be known by Faith.

Does this make any sense? If a supposed-Pope said that Our Lady spent time in Purgatory, wouldn't our reason work this way?

[awkwardcustomer]

No, Quaremere.  It is your argument against Sedevacantism that saws off the branch most of Catholicism sits on.

Why do I accept what the Church teaches?  Because the Church teaches it, that's why.  A circular argument you say.  Then why do I believe it?

Because Christ gave to His Church the authority and protection to teach the Faith without error.  But who says so?  The Catholic Church.  There's that circle again.

Your objection to the so-called circular argument of Sedes is, in fact, an objection to the same so-called circular argument of the Faithful Catholic.  Your argument can be used to question the entire teaching and authority of the Church, and not just Sedevacantism.

I will just note for the record that you have done a complete 180-degree turn from calling my argument ridiculous and not believing that anyone could possibly be arguing this way and how dare I think I refuted Fr. Cekada after being given the quotes from Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn.  Now you fully embrace that the argument for Sedevacantism is circular without, of course, honestly admitting that your brash confidence that it was not was completely unfounded.

But will you honestly admit defeat?  Of course not.  Instead now you say yes it's circular, but why care.  You make a false equivalence between the argument for sedevacantism and the rest of Catholicism, simply because it is possible to make a circular argument for Catholicism.  If what you posted above passes for "apologetics" these days, it's no wonder there are few converts.  (For the record, there is a huge difference between saying it is possible to make a circular argument for something, and calling one out for actually making a circular argument about something.)

As I have said, it is Faith that breaks the circle. I believe that the Church has been given the Divine mandate to proclaim and teach the Catholic Faith without error in order to bring souls to Heaven.  Why?  Because the Church teaches it.  And why do I believe what the Church teaches.  Because Faith has led me to accept the authority of the Church.

Does Faith tell you directly who the Pope is?  If not, then the argument for Catholicism is not circular whereas the argument for sedevacantism still is.

And I still say your argument is ridiculous.  It's also a trap, as I have said before, and can be used to question the entire body of Church teaching.

And I have no defeat to admit to because, having recognised the trap, I can now say that the arguments you are claiming to be circular, are not circular at all. Why not?  Because of Faith.

You admit that it is possible to make a circular argument for Catholicism.  For example - The Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.  How do I know this? Because the true Catholic Church tells me so.  That's a circular argument, according to you.  But so what?  It is my Faith that leads me to believe the teachings of the Church.  The Catholic Church presents herself to the world as the true Church of Christ.
On whose authority?  Christ's.  The grace to believe this is a gift from God.

Your argument about circular arguments is a phantom.

[MyrnaM]

The Modernist Novus Ordo religion of which "Q" preach is nothing more than a maze of confusion, anyone falling for it, is in great danger.

What is wrong with The Circle that brings one back to Christ anyway?   Explain "Q"! 

[Miriam_M]

THIS:

[snip/......]

And I still say your argument is ridiculous.  It's also a trap, as I have said before, and can be used to question the entire body of Church teaching.

In fact, it does question the entire body of Church teaching.  Rationalism is not the basis of Catholicism, nor can it adequately explain Mystery.  The Church has never taught that reason alone is sufficient to illuminate and sustain the understanding of Catholicism, not to mention the practice of it.  The Roman Catholic Church has a supernatural foundation, a supernatural life, and a supernatural mission.  It is not reducible to secular propositions or subject to natural human faculties, even though reason, together with Grace, supports understanding.  A man of faith appreciates this intuitively.

[INPEFESS]

Folks, let's not mistakenly believe that the Church requires us to believe in a tautological epistemology; she never has and, quite frankly, can't. But we must also distinguish between what appears to be circular and what is, in fact, a tautology. Simply because two propositions refer to each other does not mean the ends meet; rather, we can start with one of them, and while the second does refer to the first, it does not refer back to it but refers to it in on a different plane, adding new level of certainty to it.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was wont to use this example:

I believe the Church to be infallible because God revealed this; and I believe God revealed it because it is affirmed by the Church. In the second proposition "because" is not taken in the same sense as in the first, for it does not signify the formal motive of faith, but only the indispensable condition of faith, that is, the infallible proposition of the object of faith.

Similarly, we have a similar situation regarding the argument against Catholic epistemology: "We know who the pope is when he teaches the Faith; we know what the Faith is as that which is taught by the pope."

This appears circular at first, but careful examination shows that the second proposition includes another conditional by which we know the content of the Faith. That conditional is the assumption that this or that pope speaks with authority, which presupposes that the institution he heads is the true Church. Indeed, we don't follow the Coptic Pope, even though he claims to be the true authority, because the institution he heads is not the true Church, as even reason can confirm.

Thus, we only know the content of the Faith if it is taught by a man who is guaranteed to have divinely-appointed authority by virtue of his leadership of an institution that is also guaranteed to have divinely-appointed authority, which is only known by the marks by which it manifests the presence of its divine mission. Saying that we only know the content of the Faith as that which is taught by the pope assumes that this man called "pope" has any authority to tell us anything, and this itself assumes the institution he heads has any authority to tell us anything, and that itself assumes that it is can be shown that such an institution can lay any credible claim to being a divinely-appointed institution.

[Quaremerepulisti]

If (at the time of St.  Peter) someone claimed to be St. Peter but said something contrary to what Christ said, you would know it was not truly St.  Peter. 

This is the standard sedevacantist line.  It seems convincing at first, but falls completely apart under critical logical analysis.

Either we have independent, conclusive evidence that the man is St. Peter (aside from his teaching) or we do not and accept his claim to be St. Peter just on his say-so. 

If we had independently verifiable and conclusive evidence that the man was St. Peter, and it nevertheless seemed he said something (in his capacity as Apostle) contrary to what Christ said, we would be forced to conclude either:

1)  Christ was not who He claimed to be. (Christianity is false.)
2)  The claim that Peter was the rock upon which the Church is simply false and made up by Christians after the fact. (Catholicism is false.)
3)  We have somehow erred in our conclusion of a real contradiction between Christ and (putative) St. Peter.  (We are wrong.)

Now if instead you say it is impossible to have (or at least, we are not in possession of) independently verifiable and conclusive evidence that the man is St. Peter then we would be forced to accept it just on his say-so.  But why do that?  As you say, this does not falsify the possibility that he is not St. Peter and will teach false doctrine in the future.  Even if he teaches true doctrine for a time, you don't know he won't teach false doctrine in the future.  Even an impostor St. Peter would be capable of proclaiming what Christ taught, assuming he knew its content.  So you can never really know for sure the man is St. Peter.  So you are back in the sedevacantist circular argument. 

Maybe Christ's promises make fraudulent Popes impossible, but that is a further discussion.

Christ's promises don't make fraudulent Popes impossible (it doesn't prevent any Tom, Dick, or Harry from donning a white cassock and calling himself "Pope" and there have been many, many anti-Popes including a few in our present day) but they do prevent the whole Church from following a false Pope.

I am saying that the circular supposed Sede view is not the true Sede view.

And I am saying it is, for it relies on the same circular argument.

The true Sede view (as I would understand it) is that true religious doctrine, AND (probably) the verification of Pope-N, is not known solely by a supposed-Pope N saying it, but by also being able to see no clear contradictions with what Pope N-1 said with what Pope N-2 said.. and so on until Christ. Reason can cross-check the verity of what is CLAIMED to be known by Faith.

And why accept what Pope N-1 said, or what Pope N-2 said?  Or if there is a contradiction, why assume Pope N-2 is right instead of Pope N?

[Quaremerepulisti]

And I still say your argument is ridiculous.  It's also a trap, as I have said before, and can be used to question the entire body of Church teaching.

And I have no defeat to admit to because, having recognised the trap, I can now say that the arguments you are claiming to be circular, are not circular at all. Why not?  Because of Faith.

Faith doesn't rescue you from the circle of sedevacantist arguments, whereas it does for the Church in general.  Just because Faith rescues you from one circular argument doesn't mean it rescues you from all.

You admit that it is possible to make a circular argument for Catholicism.  For example - The Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.  How do I know this? Because the true Catholic Church tells me so.  That's a circular argument, according to you.  But so what? 

Yes it is a circular argument. Your "But so what" means that you simply willing to throw logic to the four winds.  This is not an argument which should ever be made for Catholicism.

It is my Faith that leads me to believe the teachings of the Church.  The Catholic Church presents herself to the world as the true Church of Christ.
On whose authority?  Christ's.  The grace to believe this is a gift from God.

Right, so you have grace to believe in the authority of Christ which puts something else in the picture which makes your epistemology not circular.

Your argument about circular arguments is a phantom.

So kindly explain how the circle of sedevacantist argument is broken.  I notice you took a pass on the following:

Does Faith tell you directly who the Pope is?  If not, then the argument for Catholicism is not circular whereas the argument for sedevacantism still is.

[Quaremerepulisti]

THIS:

[snip/......]

And I still say your argument is ridiculous.  It's also a trap, as I have said before, and can be used to question the entire body of Church teaching.

In fact, it does question the entire body of Church teaching.  Rationalism is not the basis of Catholicism, nor can it adequately explain Mystery. 

In other words, circular arguments are A-OK, and anyone who calls you on them is "rationalist".  Got it.  Our debate is over, since you are throwing logic to the four winds and saying it is virtuous to do so.

The Church has never taught that reason alone is sufficient to illuminate and sustain the understanding of Catholicism, not to mention the practice of it.  The Roman Catholic Church has a supernatural foundation, a supernatural life, and a supernatural mission.  It is not reducible to secular propositions or subject to natural human faculties, even though reason, together with Grace, supports understanding.  A man of faith appreciates this intuitively.

I never denied any of this, so this is all a red herring.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Folks, let's not mistakenly believe that the Church requires us to believe in a tautological epistemology; she never has and, quite frankly, can't. But we must also distinguish between what appears to be circular and what is, in fact, a tautology. Simply because two propositions refer to each other does not mean the ends meet; rather, we can start with one of them, and while the second does refer to the first, it does not refer back to it but refers to it in on a different plane, adding new level of certainty to it.

This is the classic distinction without a difference fallacy.  If you don't know the first proposition a priori, the fact that the first proposition entails a second and the second entails the first does not mean you all of a sudden know the first proposition, regardless of which plane you want to talk about.

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was wont to use this example:

I believe the Church to be infallible because God revealed this; and I believe God revealed it because it is affirmed by the Church. In the second proposition "because" is not taken in the same sense as in the first, for it does not signify the formal motive of faith, but only the indispensable condition of faith, that is, the infallible proposition of the object of faith.

So what?  It's still circular.  Any religious body, including Islam, could make this claim.  I believe the Quran because God revealed it; and I believe God revealed it because it is affirmed in the holy Quran.  Is that circular?  NOOOO.... well, uh, you see, God revealing is the formal motive of faith, while it being in the Quran is not the formal motive, but merely the infallible proposition of the object of faith.  That refutes all my infidel and Christian critics who rely on reason!  Allahu akbar!

Similarly, we have a similar situation regarding the argument against Catholic epistemology: "We know who the pope is when he teaches the Faith; we know what the Faith is as that which is taught by the pope."

This appears circular at first,

and at second, and at third, and at fourth....

..but careful examination shows that the second proposition includes another conditional by which we know the content of the Faith. That conditional is the assumption that this or that pope speaks with authority, which presupposes that the institution he heads is the true Church.

...which is a fancy way of saying it assumes the Pope is the Pope, so the circularity is not broken.

Saying that we only know the content of the Faith as that which is taught by the pope assumes that this man called "pope" has any authority to tell us anything, and this itself assumes the institution he heads has any authority to tell us anything, and that itself assumes that it is can be shown that such an institution can lay any credible claim to being a divinely-appointed institution.

Right, and there must be some independent way, outside of what the Pope teaches, to ascertain this, otherwise the argument is still circular.

[Wenceslav]

Dear INPEFESS

Thank-you. This absolutely refutes QMR's "refutation" in a very succinct way for people like me - Joe pew-sitter. The fact that we know that only a true Pope could head the "true" Church, which is the true Church  - possessing all 4 Marks - established by Our Lord (2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity) indeed breaks the circularity. (Note I am not denying the visibility of the Catholic Church, only that the post-conciliar cannot  be the Catholic Church - in my opinion- based on the argument of the 4 marks of the Church.)

INPEFESS says:

....That conditional is the assumption that this or that pope speaks with authority, which presupposes that the institution he heads is the true Church. Indeed , we don't follow the Coptic Pope, even though he claims to be the true authority, because the institution he heads is not the true Church, as even reason can confirm.

Thus  only know the content of the Faith if it is taught by a man who is guaranteed to have divinely-appointed authority by virtue of his leadership of an institution that is also guaranteed to have divinely-appointed authority, which is only known by the marks by which it manifests the presence of its divine mission. Saying that we only know the content of the Faith as that which is taught by the pope assumes that this man called "pope" has any authority to tell us anything, and this itself assumes the institution he heads has any authority to tell us anything, and that itself assumes that it is can be shown that such an institution can lay any credible claim to being a divinely-appointed institution.

And I hope others won't mind pondering why the post-conciliar institution is not the Church with these thought-provoking words from John Lane's Bellarmine Forums - based on the lack of the Marks in the post-conciliar institution:

The Marks of the Church are unique to her. No other body has them. That's why they are Marks, not just Notes.

The Church is visible as the Church, not merely visible as any social body. What this means is, among other things, that the Church is one in the profession of the same faith by all of her members. This is one aspect of how the mark of unity actually acts as a mark, and it certainly couldn't act as a mark if it didn't have specific, objective, content such as this.

The Notes of the Church are shared by some other bodies. For example, persecution. The Russian Orthodox church has been persecuted, quite severely, by several rulers (Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, particularly). But the Russian Orthodox church does not have the unity of faith that the Catholic Church has and must necessarily always have. The Russians believe all manner of varying things without sanction by their church. And it's the unity of the Catholic Church that is a Mark, not merely a Note. She alone claims and actually exercises the full doctrinal authority which produces true unity of profession of faith.

On the hypothesis that Bergoglio is the pope you have a supposed Catholic Church which enjoys no unity of faith, either in teaching or in believing. And the whole world has noticed this, even if you and some others blind yourselves to it. What I mean is that everybody recognises that "Catholics" no longer agree with their Church, and furthermore, that their Church no longer attempts to enforce her doctrines.

[1seeker]

This hardly proves the authority and Divine Inspiration of Scripture.  It doesn't even come close.  The Quran has also been used and recognized for centuries, as has the Talmud.  Some Christians thought the Apocrypha were Scripture.  This only means the Scriptures are likely reasonably reliable human sources of knowledge as far as relating ordinary human facts.

The length of use is just one element. There's the agreement among the apostolic church, the self-recognition of Scripture AS scripture. If St. Paul writes that what he is writing is Scripture, then that's a good indication. There are other such apostolic signs. Similarly for tradition... it is very hard to falsify it, nor does it need the retrospective stamp of the magisterium to make it Tradition.

We can have that conversation, and in fact I would. The main problem I detected in your thesis is you haven't had that conversation; or assumed it was already lost and so moved on to some other point. But IF we can determine the independent truth of Scripture and Tradition, the problem you raise with the magisterium is solved.

And I raise this yet again after you omitted answering this -- the Church teaching deciding what is Church teaching is a circle that leads to self-defeat. You must address this objection. An independent outside authority must exist by which we may judge what is Church teaching. Otherwise the Magisterium could pass communion to remarried, polygamy, the Quadrinity or Quintinity, worshipping the Koran, and you'd accept all these changes as legitimate because they were passed by a 'living church.' That's not acceptable, and has never been an acceptable answer.

That is arguing in a circle again: Scripture and Tradition are true because Christianity is true

Nope. Scripture and Tradition are true; therefore Christianity is true. It's one-directional.

The presence of grace is the only observable difference between a world in which Christianity is false (with the same exterior evidence) and one in which it is true.  How to know grace is present?  It must be experienced on an individual level.

Actually the individual experience is the least reliable way of detecting God's grace. Actually St. Paul says that if you have an individual experience that was so powerful that it made you think it came from God, but went against scripture and external doctrine, that's how you knew it was from the devil.

You've imbibed a strangely progressive modernist doctrine of personal experience, which was never classically Catholic.