Roman Catholics have long argued that we cannot know the truthfulness and reliability of the Scriptures without an aid of the authority given to the church (specifically, an infallible church). But when you ask what's the basis of this authority of the church, every Roman Catholic would point you to their favorite verses in the Bible such as Matthew 16:18-19 and 1st Timothy 3:15. For short, the Bible is true because the church says so, and the church has authority to do this because the Bible says so. This, my friends, is called a circular argument fallacy. Two separate objects are dependent on each other in order to be true, one is the basis of the other and vice versa. Sometimes more than two elements are dependent on each other.
One of the resource person of Defensores Fidei Foundation (a Roman Catholic apologetics group in the Philippines), Carlos Antonio Palad, denies such logical fallacy:
We base our belief in the truth of the Catholic Church not primarily upon Scripture – for Scripture itself needs to stand upon the truth of the Church – but upon history.
We're not going to discuss Mr. Palad's assertion on history. But we're going to challenge his statement, "But we do not argue this way." Of course his use of the pronoun "we" does not mean all Roman Catholics. I acknowledge that there are some that needs seasoning in apologetics. So I presume that the "we" used by Mr. Palad could, at a minimum, refer to apologists with a caliber similar to his.
Now, kindly read the the comments section of this article posted in Fr. Abe Arganiosa's blog (read here). Let's review how Fr. Abe and his comrades' answered:
An anonymous poster asked:
how can we be sure na hindi POLLUTED yung sacred tradition?
[Translation: how can we be sure that sacred tradition wasn't polluted?]
what is the check and balance?
Fr. Abe responds:
HINDI POLLUTED ANG SACRED-ORAL TRADITION KASI HINDI POLLUTED ANG BIBLE. ANG BIBLE AY BUNGA NG INSPIRASYON NG HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH ORAL TRADITION. SI JESUS AY HINDI NAGSULAT KUNDI NANGARAL AT MARAMING TAON ANG LUMIPAS BAGO NAGSULAT ANG MGA APOSTOL. ORAL TRADITION MUNA BAGO ANG ENSCRIPTED TRADITION WHICH IS THE BIBLE.
[The sacred oral tradition isn't polluted because the Bible isn't polluted. The Bible is the result of inspiration of the Holy Spirit through oral tradition. Jesus did not write but preached and many years had passed before the apostles began writing. Oral tradition came first before enscripted tradition which is the Bible.]
ANG BIBLE AY GALING SA ORAL TRADITION KAYA KUNG MALI ANG PINANGGALINGAN, MALI RIN ANG BUNGA.
[The Bible came from oral tradition, thus if the source is erroneous, the result is also erroneous].
To simplify it, the Bible is true because the source, which is oral traditions, is true. Some of you may ask the similar question, what's the check and balance of the sacred tradition? Fr. Abe responds:
THE CHECK AND BALANCE IS THE CHURCH WHICH IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH. THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE WORD OF GOD FLOWS NATURALLY AND PURELY AND GENUINELY OUT OF THE BODY OF CHRIST.
WALANG ALTERATIONS KASI ANG LAHAT NG ARAL NG SANTA IGLESIA AY BIBLICAL AT APOSTOLIC.
[There are no alterations because all doctrines of the holy church are biblical and apostolic.]
There's the magic word, the church. Do notice that the words pillar and ground are mentioned. The words appear in 1st Timothy 3:15 which is from the Bible. At this point some of you may seeing the circularity of the argument: Bible-> oral tradition-> church, and then returns to the Bible. But let's extend our investigation.
The anonymous poster made further inquiries:
i agree na noon oral muna yung aral..den isinulat..tama po..den the bible was the result..
[I agree that the teachings were oral at first.. then it was written.. right.. then the bible was the result]
how about yung wala sa bible? how can we be sure na hindi napollute yung hindi naisulat?
[How about those which are not in the Bible? How can we be sure that those which were not written were not polluted?]
sa pagkakaalam ko may mga panahon magulo ang Iglesia..may mga panahon pa ng Anti Pope..etc..
[As I know, there are troubled times in the church.. there are times of anti-popes.. etc..]
paano po tayo makakasiguro na yung oral tradition was 100% preserved???
[how can we be sure that the oral tradition was 100% preserved?]
A couple of anonymous comrades of Fr. Abe answered:
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19
Hindi pa ba ito sapat na assurance from God
[Is this not enough assurance from God?]
Hindi mo ba talaga ma gets anonymous?
bago pa lumabas ang Biblia NAUNA na ang ORAL TRADITION PATI ANG CATHOLIC CHURCH
ISAKSAK MO YAN SA LOGIC MO
[Don't you really get it anonymous? Before the Bible came out it was preceded by oral tradition and also the Catholic Chuch. Get that in to your logic.]
Fr. Abe endorsed the answers and added:
SINAGOT KA NA NG MGA KASAMAHAN. (The allies have answered you) HE, HE, HE... JESUS PROMISED THAT THE CHURCH WILL NOT BE OBERCAME BY THE POWERS OF HELL. EVEN DURING THE TIME OF JESUS THERE WERE PROBLEMS BUT THE TRUTH OF FAITH WAS PROTECTED FROM HERESY. THE SAME DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES. BOTH THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE WERE PROTECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT ON MATTERS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE TRUTH. THE WORD OF GOD AND THE BODY OF CHRIST CANNOT BE POLLUTED BY EVIL.
So what we have here is a quotation from Matthew 16:19, which is also from the Bible, to support the church's infallibility. The circle is complete: the Bible is error free because of pollution-free oral traditions. Oral traditions are pollution-free because the church says so. The church is protected from heresy because the Bible says so.
And how did Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad deny the circular argument: "But we do not argue this way." Yeah right, whatever! Your comrade at arms, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, obviously forgot you said that.
Oh, and one more thing. In a comment from an earlier article, an anonymous Catholic asserted this:
The Church is like a big set. Inside it there is a subset that includes Sacred Tradition. Within the subset,are two smaller subsets,called oral sacred tradition and written tradition which is the Bible.
Do note that comments are moderated by Fr. Abe. Fr. Abe has to read the comment before posting it in the blog. Eventhough the one who wrote the comment is anonymous, it should be kept in mind that Fr. Abe has reviewed this comment and he should take responsibility of what has been written in his blog.
So for the above statement the church is the big set while the Bible is only a subset. The above statement in red is really the actual position on what is the final authority for the Roman Catholics: Sola Ecclessia (the church alone).
One of the resource person of Defensores Fidei Foundation (a Roman Catholic apologetics group in the Philippines), Carlos Antonio Palad, denies such logical fallacy:
You did not even show where the circularity lies. I must seriously ask you: do you know what a circular argument looks like? Here’s one.
If we Catholics argue to the effect that “the Catholic Church is the true Church because the Bible shows us to be the true Church, and there is a Bible because the Church said so” then you can rightly accuse us of circularity. But we do not argue this way, and indeed your enumeration of our arguments do not even touch this.
We base our belief in the truth of the Catholic Church not primarily upon Scripture – for Scripture itself needs to stand upon the truth of the Church – but upon history.
We're not going to discuss Mr. Palad's assertion on history. But we're going to challenge his statement, "But we do not argue this way." Of course his use of the pronoun "we" does not mean all Roman Catholics. I acknowledge that there are some that needs seasoning in apologetics. So I presume that the "we" used by Mr. Palad could, at a minimum, refer to apologists with a caliber similar to his.
Now, kindly read the the comments section of this article posted in Fr. Abe Arganiosa's blog (read here). Let's review how Fr. Abe and his comrades' answered:
An anonymous poster asked:
how can we be sure na hindi POLLUTED yung sacred tradition?
[Translation: how can we be sure that sacred tradition wasn't polluted?]
what is the check and balance?
Fr. Abe responds:
HINDI POLLUTED ANG SACRED-ORAL TRADITION KASI HINDI POLLUTED ANG BIBLE. ANG BIBLE AY BUNGA NG INSPIRASYON NG HOLY SPIRIT THROUGH ORAL TRADITION. SI JESUS AY HINDI NAGSULAT KUNDI NANGARAL AT MARAMING TAON ANG LUMIPAS BAGO NAGSULAT ANG MGA APOSTOL. ORAL TRADITION MUNA BAGO ANG ENSCRIPTED TRADITION WHICH IS THE BIBLE.
[The sacred oral tradition isn't polluted because the Bible isn't polluted. The Bible is the result of inspiration of the Holy Spirit through oral tradition. Jesus did not write but preached and many years had passed before the apostles began writing. Oral tradition came first before enscripted tradition which is the Bible.]
ANG BIBLE AY GALING SA ORAL TRADITION KAYA KUNG MALI ANG PINANGGALINGAN, MALI RIN ANG BUNGA.
[The Bible came from oral tradition, thus if the source is erroneous, the result is also erroneous].
To simplify it, the Bible is true because the source, which is oral traditions, is true. Some of you may ask the similar question, what's the check and balance of the sacred tradition? Fr. Abe responds:
THE CHECK AND BALANCE IS THE CHURCH WHICH IS THE PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH. THE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. THE WORD OF GOD FLOWS NATURALLY AND PURELY AND GENUINELY OUT OF THE BODY OF CHRIST.
WALANG ALTERATIONS KASI ANG LAHAT NG ARAL NG SANTA IGLESIA AY BIBLICAL AT APOSTOLIC.
[There are no alterations because all doctrines of the holy church are biblical and apostolic.]
There's the magic word, the church. Do notice that the words pillar and ground are mentioned. The words appear in 1st Timothy 3:15 which is from the Bible. At this point some of you may seeing the circularity of the argument: Bible-> oral tradition-> church, and then returns to the Bible. But let's extend our investigation.
The anonymous poster made further inquiries:
i agree na noon oral muna yung aral..den isinulat..tama po..den the bible was the result..
[I agree that the teachings were oral at first.. then it was written.. right.. then the bible was the result]
how about yung wala sa bible? how can we be sure na hindi napollute yung hindi naisulat?
[How about those which are not in the Bible? How can we be sure that those which were not written were not polluted?]
sa pagkakaalam ko may mga panahon magulo ang Iglesia..may mga panahon pa ng Anti Pope..etc..
[As I know, there are troubled times in the church.. there are times of anti-popes.. etc..]
paano po tayo makakasiguro na yung oral tradition was 100% preserved???
[how can we be sure that the oral tradition was 100% preserved?]
A couple of anonymous comrades of Fr. Abe answered:
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19
Hindi pa ba ito sapat na assurance from God
[Is this not enough assurance from God?]
Hindi mo ba talaga ma gets anonymous?
bago pa lumabas ang Biblia NAUNA na ang ORAL TRADITION PATI ANG CATHOLIC CHURCH
ISAKSAK MO YAN SA LOGIC MO
[Don't you really get it anonymous? Before the Bible came out it was preceded by oral tradition and also the Catholic Chuch. Get that in to your logic.]
Fr. Abe endorsed the answers and added:
SINAGOT KA NA NG MGA KASAMAHAN. (The allies have answered you) HE, HE, HE... JESUS PROMISED THAT THE CHURCH WILL NOT BE OBERCAME BY THE POWERS OF HELL. EVEN DURING THE TIME OF JESUS THERE WERE PROBLEMS BUT THE TRUTH OF FAITH WAS PROTECTED FROM HERESY. THE SAME DURING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES. BOTH THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE WERE PROTECTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT ON MATTERS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE TRUTH. THE WORD OF GOD AND THE BODY OF CHRIST CANNOT BE POLLUTED BY EVIL.
So what we have here is a quotation from Matthew 16:19, which is also from the Bible, to support the church's infallibility. The circle is complete: the Bible is error free because of pollution-free oral traditions. Oral traditions are pollution-free because the church says so. The church is protected from heresy because the Bible says so.
And how did Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad deny the circular argument: "But we do not argue this way." Yeah right, whatever! Your comrade at arms, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, obviously forgot you said that.
Oh, and one more thing. In a comment from an earlier article, an anonymous Catholic asserted this:
The Church is like a big set. Inside it there is a subset that includes Sacred Tradition. Within the subset,are two smaller subsets,called oral sacred tradition and written tradition which is the Bible.
Do note that comments are moderated by Fr. Abe. Fr. Abe has to read the comment before posting it in the blog. Eventhough the one who wrote the comment is anonymous, it should be kept in mind that Fr. Abe has reviewed this comment and he should take responsibility of what has been written in his blog.
So for the above statement the church is the big set while the Bible is only a subset. The above statement in red is really the actual position on what is the final authority for the Roman Catholics: Sola Ecclessia (the church alone).
0 comments:
Post a Comment