Roman Catholics: a question that's been bothering me

antiskeptic

Fairly simple really:

Smurfhousing wrote:

Reminds me of that dreadful period described in the Book of Judges, when every man decided for himself what was right and good, in the absence of a legitimate, Godly authority*. Fortunately, we now have that authority. We have no excuse.

antiskeptic wrote:

There's something decidedly circular about this. Some men say that they interpret scripture (and history) to mean that they are the authority on interpreting scripture and history.

That you chose to hand over interpretation to others doesn't mean that interpretation isn't effectively your own. You are as responsible for what you chose to believe as I am.

I've heard Roman Catholics reproving non-Catholics for "interpreting the Bible for yourself" so often now it's a wonder I haven't asked the above question sooner. Clearly the same circularity attaches to the reply that "the Roman Church is the Christ-ordained authority on such matters"

How does the Roman Catholic escape the circularity of these positions so as to be in a position to reprove.



* Smurf's example is a case in point. Either this is his interpretation of what that piece of scripture is saying. Or it is the Official Roman Catholic position on that piece of scripture.

StealthRolex engages in precisely the same self-contradicting argumentation - demanding that the reader self-interpret scripture in order to find out that he shouldn't self-interpret scripture.

S.Rolex sig wrote:

No prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation [2 Peter 1:20] ... for the unlearned and unstable wrest ... Scriptures ... to their own descruction." [2 Peter 3:16]

Fanny Cradock

We have 3 or 4 similar threads running at the moment. I'm considering merging all these together into some mega-thread if this goes the way of the others.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fairly simple really:




I've heard Roman Catholics reproving non-Catholics for "interpreting the Bible for yourself" so often now it's a wonder I haven't asked the above question sooner. Clearly the same circularity attaches to the reply that "the Roman Church is the Christ-ordained authority on such matters"

How does the Roman Catholic escape the circularity of these positions so as to be in a position to reprove.



* Smurf's example is a case in point. Either this is his interpretation of what that piece of scripture is saying. Or it is the Official Roman Catholic position on that piece of scripture.

StealthRolex engages in precisely the same self-contradicting argumentation - demanding that the reader self-interpret scripture in order to find out that he shouldn't self-interpret scripture.

Couldn't you simply replace "Roman Catholic Church" with "Bible" and you arrive at the same issue. Most if not all Christians interpret the Bible as the infallible word of God. There is a degree of circular logic in such a position but any of the Christians I've discussed this with say they have good reasons to view the Bible as the infallible word of God, such as the Bible providing consistent results such as improving their lives etc.

Surely that logic can also be used to view the RCC as the best representative to interpret the Bible? Eg. the RCC consistently interpreting the Bible in such a way that makes the most sense in the long run or produces the most coherent narrative.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Couldn't you simply replace "Roman Catholic Church" with "Bible" and you arrive at the same issue. Most if not all Christians interpret the Bible as the infallible word of God. There is a degree of circular logic in such a position but any of the Christians I've discussed this with say they have good reasons to view the Bible as the infallible word of God, such as the Bible providing consistent results such as improving their lives etc.

Surely that logic can also be used to view the RCC as the best representative to interpret the Bible? Eg. the RCC consistently interpreting the Bible in such a way that makes the most sense in the long run or produces the most coherent narrative.

If the Roman Catholic said it was by faith that he believed the RC church 'The One True Church' then that would be fine with me. His 'by faith' that it is and my 'by faith' that it isn't would cancel each other out and he could cease claiming what he claims due to the issue being stalemated.

I suspect that won't be the basis of the claim however.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the Roman Catholic said it was by faith that he believed the RC church 'The One True Church' then that would be fine with me. His 'by faith' that it is and my 'by faith' that it isn't would cancel each other out and he could cease claiming what he claims due to the issue being stalemated.

I suspect that won't be the basis of the claim however.

Your use of the word 'faith' here is misplaced, and could easily be replaced by the phrase, 'I just believe'. I find this use of the word faith is what leads to the inept definition used by alot of Christians and atheists alike, 'Belief in something without evidence'. Wicknight is asking for a basis, 'faith' is NOT a basis for believing the bible is the word of God. Faith is a basis for believing (NOT believing IN) and trusting God. The question is, WHY do you believe that the bible is the word of God? 'Faith' is NOT an answer, in the same way that 'I just do' is not an answer. You know what I mean?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

If the Roman Catholic said it was by faith that he believed the RC church 'The One True Church' then that would be fine with me. His 'by faith' that it is and my 'by faith' that it isn't would cancel each other out and he could cease claiming what he claims due to the issue being stalemated.

I suspect that won't be the basis of the claim however.

As Jimi points out I wasn't really talking about faith. Faith would be the end result rather than the initial basis.

Faith itself (which I interpret to be a form of trust, not sure everyone agrees with that but there you go:)) requires a foundation and I've yet to met a Christians on this forum who can't give reasons for this trust in the Bible.

As I mentioned on of the most common justifications is that the Bible "works", for want of a better phrase. In other words that the person took a chance on the Bible, possibly based on a cut feeling, and it has lead them to much happier life. This in turn leads them to further trust in what the Bible says about stuff.

What ever about the flaws I would personally see in such a process (which are not the topic of the thread) it doesn't seem that different to how Catholics approach the RCC.

At the end of the day it is about trusting a group or book or what ever, and I would imagine most Catholics can give reason for why they have this trust in the first place, just as I'm sure the rest of you can give reasons why you trust the Bible.

The faith/trust Catholics put in the RCC seems no more or less circular than the faith/trust Christians put in the Bible. It seems odd them to single out Catholics for some circular flaw in how they approach the RCC interpretation of the Bible.

smurfhousing

As the original smurf who wrote the comment referred to above, I can say that a comment by another poster reminded me of a period in the Book of Judges. It reminded me, like walking in the summer meadow reminds me of childhood and strawberry jam sandwiches.

When Catholics read the bible, we are free to read it and so forth, but we need to make sure that we refer to the Church when we have questions or are not clear about the meaning. We also need to be careful that we aren't propagating false ideas contrary to Church teachings to others. We can do this by referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is filled with biblical references) or a good Church approved biblical commentary, such as this: https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/618/keywords/holy+scripture/ or this: http://www.scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=25

Personally speaking, if I read the bible, I like to have a commentary on what I am reading, to explain it according to the mind of the Church, and not my own wacky ideas. This is important because otherwise we can come up with dangerous and destructive ideas, and even start condoning sins, just because we can't find them in the bible.

Zombrex

smurfhousing wrote: »

As the original smurf who wrote the comment referred to above, I can say that a comment by another poster reminded me of a period in the Book of Judges. It reminded me, like walking in the summer meadow reminds me of childhood and strawberry jam sandwiches.

When Catholics read the bible, we are free to read it and so forth, but we need to make sure that we refer to the Church when we have questions or are not clear about the meaning. We also need to be careful that we aren't propagating false ideas contrary to Church teachings to others. We can do this by referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is filled with biblical references) or a good Church approved biblical commentary, such as this: https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/618/keywords/holy+scripture/ or this: http://www.scepterpublishers.org/product/index.php?FULL=25

Personally speaking, if I read the bible, I like to have a commentary on what I am reading, to explain it according to the mind of the Church, and not my own wacky ideas. This is important because otherwise we can come up with dangerous and destructive ideas, and even start condoning sins, just because we can't find them in the bible.

The question I think is why basis do you have for this trust in the RCC in the first place?

I think antiskeptics issue (is I'm following) is the apparent circular reasoning is deferring to the RCC for interpretation of the Bible rather than using your own interpretation when the trust in the RCC itself (instead of any other group claiming to be the "church") comes from a personal interpretation of the Bible.

Why trust what the RCC says as opposed to say the Anglican church? If you doubt your own interpretation in other areas can you trust your interpretation that the RCC is the true representation of the church?

You seem to hint in this response that it is because you believe that the RCC is the "church" that is referred to in the Bible itself, which seems perfectly valid interpretation, just trying to clarify.

To clarify I'm not a Christian, just playing devil's advocate from both sides as I think this is an interesting question and because I'm bored at work

TO THE MODS - saw the Megathread has been created, apologies if I was supposed to post this there instead of here. I assume this discussion will be moved at some point?

smurfhousing

Wicknight wrote: »

Why trust what the RCC says as opposed to say the Anglican church? If you doubt your own interpretation in other areas can you trust your interpretation that the RCC is the true representation of the church?

You seem to hint in this response that it is because you believe that the RCC is the "church" that is referred to in the Bible itself, which seems perfectly valid interpretation, just trying to clarify.

That's it. The Church that was founded on Peter and is led by his successors. That same Church which scripture calls the foundation and bulwark of the truth. That is the basis of my trust. See here for more: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

PDN

Guys, to avoid the board being overrun with this kind of stuff I'm asking you to take any further debate on this to the Protestant / Catholic Megathread.
Thanks