"but I Would Not Believe In The Gospel, Had Not The Authority Of T

[Mikaele]

<h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}"> Forgive for posting a question which has probably being asked. But if the Bible relies on the Church' authority, and the authority of the Church relies on the Gospel, then isn't that a circular argument?
</h3>

[Mikaele]

Sorry typo. I meant to write, been* not being. Early in the morning.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mikaele' date='25 May 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1274826619' post='2117631']
<h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}"> Forgive for posting a question which has probably being asked. But if the Bible relies on the Church' authority, and the authority of the Church relies on the Gospel, then isn't that a circular argument?
</h3>
[/quote]
I think it would be incorrect to say that the Bible relies on the Church's authority. The Canon of the Bible was assembled by the Church, but the writings themselves come directly from God. It was just that the Church in Her competency arranged it authoritatively.

[Mikaele]

But the gospels aren't credible without the Church and the Church isn't credible without the gospels. Do you see my question?

[CatherineM]

The Authority of the Church comes from Jesus. The Gospel recounts this. Both the Church Tradition and the Bible come from the authority of Christ.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mikaele' date='25 May 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1274827872' post='2117643']
But the gospels aren't credible without the Church and the Church isn't credible without the gospels. Do you see my question?
[/quote]
I think that rather than that, you could say that both are independently credible.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 May 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1274833077' post='2117715']
I think that rather than that, you could say that both are independently credible.
[/quote]

I would say that the Church is built upon the faith of Peter in God's revelation of Christ, which is found in sacred Scripture and in sacred Tradition.

[N/A Gone]

Post-apostle generations speak of the role of the Church before there was the Canon of scripture. The Church was a lived reality at that time, not a theoretical concept or literary interpretation.

[Bennn]

There's a harmony between the two founts of Divine Revelation. Sacred Scripture can only be legitimately interpreted by the Holy Magisterium of the Church, and in turn the Catholic Church is the Biblical people of God, the way the Sacred Writings have intended it to be.

[Ziggamafu]

After we deduce that the NT contains at least generally reliable history, we can, with the additional consideration of the witness of the Church (especially the martyrs), deduce that it is reasonable to have faith in Christ as Lord. We may then see that Christ bestowed his authority upon the apostles, who were the first bishops and who subsequently passed their authority down through the generations. "As the Father sent me," says Christ to his apostles, "so also I send you." That is the unique difference between true churches and mere congregations of Christians. True churches have the authority of the apostolic sending. It is this authority of Christ, that the Church has been sent with, by which certain writings of the early Church could be discerned and declared as divinely inspired.

The line of reasoning begins with Christ in the historic record, proceeds to the establishment of the Church in the historic record, and continues with the Church's discernment of the scriptures in the historic record.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mikaele' date='25 May 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1274827872' post='2117643']
But the gospels aren't credible without the Church and the Church isn't credible without the gospels. Do you see my question?
[/quote]
The Church pre-existed the Bible. The Bible is assembled out of convenience.