Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[Eufrosnia]

Well they oftentimes say “Scripture interprets scripture”

… and we know scripture says “the HS will guide you unto all understanding” !

Well that is the thing though. Ideas such as “Scripture interprets Scripture” or that “HS every individual to the truth” are things interpreted from Scripture itself. So if indeed these claims interpretations errors themselves, then the entire foundation is in error, yes?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Eufrosnia;10742121]

My point is that beauty precedes assent.

But how does beauty precede assent in the sense of anything meaningful as reason for assent? Beauty without confirmation of Transcendent truths is a guess at what the ontological reality of objects may be. So it is a subjective beauty based on conditioning.

So I am sure people feel a sense of beauty before assent but I do not see any merit in that particular sense of beauty.

Perhaps not enough, in and of itself, but without beauty attracting us in the first place, there is no incentive to apply reason.

e.g.–I see no attraction at all, to Islam. Hence I do not subject its claims to reason. I have dismissed them, almost ab initio (and certainly, that rejection has been mostly confirmed with what I have leared and read subsequent thereto).

But that is the problem here. I feel it more intuitive to say that all of us are attracted to discovering the truth. That I feel is not a Transcendent claim but an intuitive one. I can claim about myself that I do want to know the truth than be told a lie.

Given that is the case, the only motivation for religion should be the desire to discover the truth, in this case, regarding matters of the Transcendent.

Christ’s disciples followed him everywhere he went. Palm Sunday? Laying palm fronds before his donkey, as he triumphantly entered J’lem? Within a mere three years of his ministry…

The Apostles don’t appear to apply much reason at all, until after they were already following him. Christ comes up to them, interrputs them in the middle of what they’re doing, says “…come, follow me…”–and they do. What reason was ever applied there???

Only after Christ is crucified, do we see them begin to apply reason. Before the Res’n, yes, they were scattered and in hiding–but that wasn’t a rejection according to reason–that was self-preservation, plain and simple. During this period, we see them begin to apply reason. The attraction to the beauty remained, and was evident even prior to the Pentacost–even prior to the Resurrection… then after the Resurrection, it was confirmed.

Worst sitll, is that when we see some of his disciples apply reason–it doesn’t work out so well.

“…many disciples walked with him no more”–John 6:66–right after, and directly in resonse to, Christ proclaiming the Eucharist ("…unless you eat the body of teh Son of Man, and Drink his blood, you have no life in you").

Apply reason to Christ’s claims about eating his body and blood…and ‘assent’ crumbles.

However, taken on Faith, according to the compulsion of the beauty of the message, and you have the foundation of Christ’s Church.

But you are forgetting that no one saw beauty in Christ’s request to eat the body and blood. Certainly not even the Disciples or Peter say “How beautiful!” when Christ questioned if they would leave too. Rather, he said ‘to who else can we go’. Now that would mean that they had reasoned that Christ was the only authority anyway. But more in this context of our discussion, Peter did not certainly think that Christ was giving some beautiful teaching but something that seemed ugly and unpalatable at the time.

So this idea of loving Jesus because of what he taught is rather misleading. Apostles certainly did not think, at least all his teachings, were beautiful.

As for the first answer to the call “follow me”, one can only assume that they were influenced by the words of John the Baptist. It can be assumed that John the Baptist had established himself by that time as a prophet and people were listening to his words. So naturally, the words about Jesus at his baptism must have been heard by some ears.

Otherwise, it would be unwise for us to read something unreasonable in to the gospel narrative. At best, we must say that we cannot say ‘this way or that’ regarding whether the Apostles assented on an attraction to beauty of Christ’s message (which itself does not make sense because Christ had not preached yet) or based on authority of John the Baptist.

Again, they believed, because they wanted to believe; they wanted to believe, because it’s beautiful. Reason was applied after the initial attractant–beauty. Assent follwed, upon confirmation of their application of reason (i.e.–their eyes saw…then they beleived).

I am a bit confused. What exactly do you mean is beautiful? The act of just believing or the content of belief? Because I do not think anyone considered the content to be always beautiful, especially with respect to body and blood.

I’m not saying Chirst didn’t appeal to reason–I’m simply saying that the need, or cause, or application of reason, comes after the attractant of beauty.

What’s more, assent may even come before application of reason, according to the beauty of Truth–as it did with the Apostles–if we are fortunate enough to be presented with Truth, rather than an imposter.

Stated differently, reason is certainly useful in filtering out imposters of Truth, and for confirming Truth–but not necessary for assent to Truth.

Assent without reason is arbitrary. You might feel attracted to any number of things depending on your upbringing. To assent to something because you think it is ‘beautiful’ is really just a subjective assent. For all we know, you could be lead to believe a lie.

Anyway, are you saying that it is ok to assent when there is no reason to believe that the person making the claims has any authority? Because that wouldn’t be any different from what Protestants say.

 

[Goya]

But how does beauty precede assent in the sense of anything meaningful as reason for assent? Beauty without confirmation of Transcendent truths is a guess at what the ontological reality of objects may be. So it is a subjective beauty based on conditioning.

So I am sure people feel a sense of beauty before assent but I do not see any merit in that particular sense of beauty.

But that is the problem here. I feel it more intuitive to say that all of us are attracted to discovering the truth. That I feel is not a Transcendent claim but an intuitive one. I can claim about myself that I do want to know the truth than be told a lie.

Given that is the case, the only motivation for religion should be the desire to discover the truth, in this case, regarding matters of the Transcendent.

But you are forgetting that no one saw beauty in Christ’s request to eat the body and blood. Certainly not even the Disciples or Peter say “How beautiful!” when Christ questioned if they would leave too. Rather, he said ‘to who else can we go’. Now that would mean that they had reasoned that Christ was the only authority anyway. But more in this context of our discussion, Peter did not certainly think that Christ was giving some beautiful teaching but something that seemed ugly and unpalatable at the time.

So this idea of loving Jesus because of what he taught is rather misleading. Apostles certainly did not think, at least all his teachings, were beautiful.

As for the first answer to the call “follow me”, one can only assume that they were influenced by the words of John the Baptist. It can be assumed that John the Baptist had established himself by that time as a prophet and people were listening to his words. So naturally, the words about Jesus at his baptism must have been heard by some ears.

Otherwise, it would be unwise for us to read something unreasonable in to the gospel narrative. At best, we must say that we cannot say ‘this way or that’ regarding whether the Apostles assented on an attraction to beauty of Christ’s message (which itself does not make sense because Christ had not preached yet) or based on authority of John the Baptist.

I am a bit confused. What exactly do you mean is beautiful? The act of just believing or the content of belief? Because I do not think anyone considered the content to be always beautiful, especially with respect to body and blood.

Assent without reason is arbitrary. You might feel attracted to any number of things depending on your upbringing. To assent to something because you think it is ‘beautiful’ is really just a subjective assent. For all we know, you could be lead to believe a lie.

Anyway, are you saying that it is ok to assent when there is no reason to believe that the person making the claims has any authority? Because that wouldn’t be any different from what Protestants say.

To clarify…

Briefly (gotta’ run here):

The ‘eating of the flesh of the Son of Man’ may not be beautiful, but it didn’t need to be–the Apostles were already Christ’s apostles–hence it did not need to be ‘beautiful’ to on its face to them–much of the beauty, surely rested in the mystery of it all–so there was already a context into which to fit ths ‘hard teaching’.

Furthermore…if you don’t see the beauty of our Faith, I pity you and will pray for you.

It is sincerely beautiful, to its core.

It can be difficult–in fact, it should be difficult and challenging; learning about it can get and be boring; but the beauty remains, and makes it worth every bit of difficulty, and so much more!

As I sated above, it is our charge to champion its beauty.

 

[Eufrosnia]

To clarify…

Briefly (gotta’ run here):

The ‘eating of the flesh of the Son of Man’ may not be beautiful, but it didn’t need to be–the Apostles were already Christ’s apostles–hence it did not need to be ‘beautiful’ to on its face to them–much of the beauty, surely rested in the mystery of it all–so there was already a context into which to fit ths ‘hard teaching’.

Furthermore…if you don’t see the beauty of our Faith, I pity you and will pray for you.

It is sincerely beautiful, to its core.

It can be difficult–in fact, it should be difficult and challenging; learning about it can get and be boring; but the beauty remains, and makes it worth every bit of difficulty, and so much more!

As I sated above, it is our charge to champion its beauty.

Well, you have yet to show that Apostles accepted the faith because of beauty, a premise which is highly dubious on its own merit. When Jesus called the first Apostle, he had done no preaching yet. So to say that the Apostle joined because of the beauty of Christ’s message seems to be doubtful. On the other hand, it could be well due to the reasonable assent after hearing John the Baptist’s proclamation of Christ.

That being said, why does everyone assume that I lack either peace, love or appreciation of the beauty of faith because I oppose using it as a reason for assent?

I have made it very clear as to why I oppose using these as foundation for assent. None of those reasons say that I cannot feel or appreciate these things AFTER assent. In fact, it only makes sense to appreciate the beauty of it after assent.

I cannot appreciate the beauty of the moral teachings of the Church if I do not accept its understanding of human nature. Same with nature of God. Neither can I appreciate the depth and beauty of its Theology if all of it was just a logically consistent framework. It would be just be a nice story with a deep lore.

So believe me when I say this, I have no lack of appreciation for the faith in its beauty and goodness. But I am not under some illusion to think that it must look the same for everyone. I can see natural reasons like upbringing, preconceived notions, and environment playing a major role in seeing the faith as plain ugly and harsh. That is why it seems clear to me that such a procedure is arbitrary, erroneous and not worthy of any encouragement.

 

[adf417]

Furthermore…if you don’t see the beauty of our Faith, I pity you and will pray for you.

It is sincerely beautiful, to its core.

I think he sees clearly the beauty of our faith…he is just having difficulty painting his rendition in a way all can reason with, or “enjoy” if we want to keep with the entertaining mode.

Eufrosnia, have a I wish I could help brotrher!

 

[brb3]

My point is that beauty preceeds assent.

Perhaps not enough, in and of itself, but without beauty attracting us in the first place, there is no incentive to apply reason.

e.g.–I see no attraction at all, to Islam. Hence I do not subject its claims to reason. I have dismissed them, almost ab initio (and certainly, that rejection has been mostly confirmed with what I have leared and read subsequent thereto).

Christ’s disciples followed him everywhere he went. Palm Sunday? Laying palm fronds before his donkey, as he triumphantly entered J’lem? Within a mere three years of his ministry…

The Apostles don’t appear to apply much reason at all, until after they were already following him. Christ comes up to them, interrputs them in the middle of what they’re doing, says “…come, follow me…”–and they do. What reason was ever applied there???

Only after Christ is crucified, do we see them begin to apply reason. Before the Res’n, yes, they were scattered and in hiding–but that wasn’t a rejection according to reason–that was self-preservation, plain and simple. During this period, we see them begin to apply reason. The attraction to the beauty remained, and was evident even prior to the Pentacost–even prior to the Resurrection… then after the Resurrection, it was confirmed.

Worst sitll, is that when we see some of his disciples apply reason–it doesn’t work out so well.

“…many disciples walked with him no more”–John 6:66–right after, and directly in resonse to, Christ proclaiming the Eucharist ("…unless you eat the body of teh Son of Man, and Drink his blood, you have no life in you").

Apply reason to Christ’s claims about eating his body and blood…and ‘assent’ crumbles.

However, taken on Faith, according to the compulsion of the beauty of the message, and you have the foundation of Christ’s Church.

Again, they believed, because they wanted to believe; they wanted to believe, because it’s beautiful. Reason was applied after the initial attractant–beauty. Assent follwed, upon confirmation of their application of reason (i.e.–their eyes saw…then they beleived).

I’m not saying Chirst didn’t appeal to reason–I’m simply saying that the need, or cause, or application of reason, comes after the attractant of beauty.

What’s more, assent may even come before application of reason, according to the beauty of Truth–as it did with the Apostles–if we are fortunate enough to be presented with Truth, rather than an imposter.

Stated differently, reason is certainly useful in filtering out imposters of Truth, and for confirming Truth–but not necessary for assent to Truth.

Goya …

Grade A on your above composition !!!

Also, we consider that it was the educated Hebrews, the Scribes/Sadducees, and Pharisees [like Saul]… who using their ‘reasoning’ ----- erred, and rejected the Savior !!

 

[Eufrosnia]

Goya …

Grade A on your above composition !!!

Also, we consider that it was the educated Hebrews, the Scribes/Sadducees, and Pharisees [like Saul]… who using their ‘reasoning’ ----- erred, and rejected the Savior !!

You know they erred because of the version of Christianity you came to believe without any reason to think it true ? I have to say, why don’t you honestly think about what you are saying here.

The only way we know to convince others or convince ourselves is through the use of reason. Gut feelings, our attractions, usually end up being wrong half the time anyway (in other words, its down to chance).

This is why even Goya, You, Semangelof and many others are here trying to reason with me or someone else. You try to use reason all the time in your Marian threads. You try to reason that since Mary doesn’t seem to have the attributes Catholics give her in Scripture to your best understanding, it must be error. What would happen then if a Catholic told you that somethings you just know or feel attracted to because its true, and Marian doctrine is one of them? They will say that Marian doctrine is just as true as “Scripture is the Word of God”, a claim you put your faith in without reason. They might even say that the Holy Spirit has moved them to know it is true and they don’t need reasons. If I were to take a guess, if this entire forum started to tell you that, you would feel like pulling your hair out. Why? Because we would have abandoned reason and you would feel helpless! Yes, helpless! Because we are denying you the only methodology, reason, that you can use to show our error.

All of you are trying to reason and yet you become hostile to it when you see it threatens your own ideas. That is unfair and a double standard. Before you try to reason to convince others of errors, you must first know that your position itself is reasonable. What this thread shows is that your position is not as sound as we would like it to be. In fact, it has become so obvious that you are trying to justify accepting at least some truths without an reason but on mere faith so that you can perhaps salvage your position. That itself is unreasonable.

Basically what you are trying to do is lay out a deductive argument for Christianity (Protestantism to be specific) where the important premises are suppossed to be accepted by faith. That is a bad argument and illogical. You might as well ask people to believe in the conclusion by itself.

As far as I can see, you assenting without reason is just as bad as not assenting using correct reason.

Oh and you know what got Saul to reconsider his own position? It was seeing the risen Christ and knowing that he did truly rise from the dead. Now that is reason too, in case you did not realize. Saul didn’t just convert after hearing the message from Apostles or early Christians. He had no issue stoning Stephen either.

P.S. I sincerely hope that out of mercy for my fingers and time I have taken to answer you all, you will read this post a little more carefully and at least think about the bolded part above.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I think he sees clearly the beauty of our faith…he is just having difficulty painting his rendition in a way all can reason with, or “enjoy” if we want to keep with the entertaining mode.

Eufrosnia, have a I wish I could help brotrher!

Thank you, your words alone are encouraging

 

[brb3]

You know they erred because of the version of Christianity you came to believe without any reason to think it true ? I have to say, why don’t you honestly think about what you are saying here.

The only way we know to convince others or convince ourselves is through the use of reason. Gut feelings, our attractions, usually end up being wrong half the time anyway (in other words, its down to chance).

This is why even Goya, You, Semangelof and many others are here trying to reason with me or someone else. You try to use reason all the time in your Marian threads. You try to reason that since Mary doesn’t seem to have the attributes Catholics give her in Scripture to your best understanding, it must be error. What would happen then if a Catholic told you that somethings you just know or feel attracted to because its true, and Marian doctrine is one of them? They will say that Marian doctrine is just as true as “Scripture is the Word of God”, a claim you put your faith in without reason. They might even say that the Holy Spirit has moved them to know it is true and they don’t need reasons. If I were to take a guess, if this entire forum started to tell you that, you would feel like pulling your hair out. Why? Because we would have abandoned reason and you would feel helpless! Yes, helpless! Because we are denying you the only methodology, reason, that you can use to show our error.

All of you are trying to reason and yet you become hostile to it when you see it threatens your own ideas. That is unfair and a double standard. Before you try to reason to convince others of errors, you must first know that your position itself is reasonable. What this thread shows is that your position is not as sound as we would like it to be. In fact, it has become so obvious that you are trying to justify accepting at least some truths without an reason but on mere faith so that you can perhaps salvage your position. That itself is unreasonable.

Basically what you are trying to do is lay out a deductive argument for Christianity (Protestantism to be specific) where the important premises are suppossed to be accepted by faith. That is a bad argument and illogical. You might as well ask people to believe in the conclusion by itself.

As far as I can see, you assenting without reason is just as bad as not assenting using correct reason.

Oh and you know what got Saul to reconsider his own position? It was seeing the risen Christ and knowing that he did truly rise from the dead. Now that is reason too, in case you did not realize. Saul didn’t just convert after hearing the message from Apostles or early Christians. He had no issue stoning Stephen either.

P.S. I sincerely hope that out of mercy for my fingers and time I have taken to answer you all, you will read this post a little more carefully and at least think about the bolded part above.

No, No, No !!! We all love Reasoning … it is essential to growth in the faith. But, first comes faith.
As scripture teaches … ‘except we have the faith of a child … we can’t enter the Kingdom’. Once Faith and Grace redeem us … then we grow to adults by addition of reason.

you do believe in infant baptism … right ?

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, No, No !!! We all love Reasoning … it is essential to growth in the faith. But, first comes faith.
As scripture teaches … ‘except we have the faith of a child … we can’t enter the Kingdom’. Once Faith and Grace redeem us … then we grow to adults by addition of reason.

you do believe in infant baptism … right ?

If first comes faith, then how do you even know if you believe in the right thing? Because won’t you just try to justify whatever it is that you believe using “I just have faith”?

Answer the following. If I told you that first comes faith and all the Marian doctrines are just from faith, the Church has authority is just from faith, and that Protestants are wrong is just by faith. We just know them to be true, what would you have to say? What can you even use to say “Eufrosnia, that does not make sense because ____________” (fill in the blank).

 

[Goya]

Goya …

Grade A on your above composition !!!

Also, we consider that it was the educated Hebrews, the Scribes/Sadducees, and Pharisees [like Saul]… who using their ‘reasoning’ ----- erred, and rejected the Savior !!

Thank you…and good points with your add-on’s.

 

[Goya]

I think he sees clearly the beauty of our faith…he is just having difficulty painting his rendition in a way all can reason with, or “enjoy” if we want to keep with the entertaining mode.

Eufrosnia, have a I wish I could help brotrher!

Well, I didn’t suggest that he couldn’t see the beauty of our faith–I prefaced with “if”–(i.e.–'IF you can’t see the beauty of our faith…"). If that were the case, then I offered my pity and prayers.

It certainly appears that he does–its just a matter of did the beauty come before the assent, or after–which for all intents and purposes, isn’t an issue at all. I did not suggest that it was necessary to see the beauty before assent–only that it is more common that Man is attracted by the beauty, first–then assents.

It’s all good–this isn’t exactly a heated exchange–not as far as I can tell, anyway.

 

[Goya]

Eufrosnia;10743430]

Well, you have yet to show that Apostles accepted the faith because of beauty, a premise which is highly dubious on its own merit. When Jesus called the first Apostle, he had done no preaching yet. So to say that the Apostle joined because of the beauty of Christ’s message seems to be doubtful. On the other hand, it could be well due to the reasonable assent after hearing John the Baptist’s proclamation of Christ.

Wait–you discredit my suggestion that the beauty of the message was what attracted the Apostles by pointing out that Christ had not yet preached (point well taken)…but then you go on to suggest that it was due to the Baptism.

But your claim that the Apostles were present at the Baptism, is as much conjecture, as mine.

I say that the chronolgy undermines your suggestion–for what reasoning could the Apostles have applied, since Christ had not yet begun to preach? They couldn’t apply reason to their decision to follow Christ, based upon what he was claiming, since He had not yet claimed anything. Nor based upon the Baptism in the Jordan, since there is no indication that they were present at such (and why wouldn’t they have begun to follow Him then, rather than waiting for Christ to find them?).

Perhaps then, with the Apostles, it was the Beauty of Truth, rather than ‘the beauty of the message’, which prompted them to follow Christ ‘blindly’ (admittedly conjecture). Either way, it does not appear that much ‘reasoning’ was applied, before assenting, and following Christ. There is nothing to buttress your contention that they reasoned before assenting.

That being said, why does everyone assume that I lack either peace, love or appreciation of the beauty of faith because I oppose using it as a reason for assent?

To be clear, I didn’t assume this–I prefaced with “if”–just in case that was the case. I wasn’t presuming to conclude that you didn’t appreciate the beauty of the Faith. No offense intended.

I have made it very clear as to why I oppose using these as foundation for assent. None of those reasons say that I cannot feel or appreciate these things AFTER assent. In fact, it only makes sense to appreciate the beauty of it after assent.

Fair enough. My point however, was that the beauty of the message attracts us first; then we apply reason. Assent (or non-assent follows). Perhaps we’re not too far apart here. All I’m suggesting is that the first attractant is beauty–not reason. Assent may or may not follow reason, and it may or may not preceed reason–but assent follows Beauty–the ‘thing’ that prompts us to apply reason, or consider assenting, in the first place.

I cannot appreciate the beauty of the moral teachings of the Church if I do not accept its understanding of human nature. Same with nature of God. Neither can I appreciate the depth and beauty of its Theology if all of it was just a logically consistent framework. It would be just be a nice story with a deep lore.

But what attracted you to apply reason to the Church’s authority in the first place?

And assuming you’re a cradle Catholic (as I am)–what of those who came to the Faith, having already achieved the ‘age of reason’? Did they reason first, get to the Church’s authority by reason, and then say 'hey, this is beautiful!"? Or is the more likely scenario more like…'hey man, those Christians got it going on!..I want in!" i.e.–the beauty attracts; then reason, and/or assent, follows.

e.g.–where assent preceeds reason–“I don’t care how they got there, or how they do it…I just want to be a part of it…I want in!”;

e.g.–where assent follows reason: “this is beautiful–I might want to be a part of it–but first, I must understand what they’re about”.

Both hypos are plausible; both surely reflect the path of many, respectively. Neither excludes the other; and in both cases, the beauty attracts first. Assent and/or reason follow.

So believe me when I say this, I*** have no lack of appreciation for the faith in its beauty and goodness***. But I am not under some illusion to think that it must look the same for everyone. I can see natural reasons like upbringing, preconceived notions, and environment playing a major role in seeing the faith as plain ugly and harsh. That is why it seems clear to me that such a procedure is arbitrary, erroneous and not worthy of any encouragement.

First, I reiterate, “if”–I did not mean to assume anything;

Second–YOU are not under some illusion that it must be the same for everyone? I thought that’s what your whole OP and this thread was about–I thought you were suggesting that ASSENT must necessarily follow REASON–that without reasoning first, it would not be reasonable to assent.

Have I misunderstood?

 

[Goya]

You know they erred because of the version of Christianity you came to believe without any reason to think it true ? I have to say, why don’t you honestly think about what you are saying here.

The only way we know to convince others or convince ourselves is through the use of reason. Gut feelings, our attractions, usually end up being wrong half the time anyway (in other words, its down to chance).

This is why even Goya, You, Semangelof and many others are here trying to reason with me or someone else. You try to use reason all the time in your Marian threads. You try to reason that since Mary doesn’t seem to have the attributes Catholics give her in Scripture to your best understanding, it must be error. What would happen then if a Catholic told you that somethings you just know or feel attracted to because its true, and Marian doctrine is one of them? They will say that Marian doctrine is just as true as “Scripture is the Word of God”, a claim you put your faith in without reason. They might even say that the Holy Spirit has moved them to know it is true and they don’t need reasons. If I were to take a guess, if this entire forum started to tell you that, you would feel like pulling your hair out. Why? Because we would have abandoned reason and you would feel helpless! Yes, helpless! Because we are denying you the only methodology, reason, that you can use to show our error.

All of you are trying to reason and yet you become hostile to it when you see it threatens your own ideas. That is unfair and a double standard. Before you try to reason to convince others of errors, you must first know that your position itself is reasonable. What this thread shows is that your position is not as sound as we would like it to be. In fact, it has become so obvious that you are trying to justify accepting at least some truths without an reason but on mere faith so that you can perhaps salvage your position. That itself is unreasonable.

Basically what you are trying to do is lay out a deductive argument for Christianity (Protestantism to be specific) where the important premises are suppossed to be accepted by faith. That is a bad argument and illogical. You might as well ask people to believe in the conclusion by itself.

As far as I can see, you assenting without reason is just as bad as not assenting using correct reason.

Oh and you know what got Saul to reconsider his own position? It was seeing the risen Christ and knowing that he did truly rise from the dead. Now that is reason too, in case you did not realize. Saul didn’t just convert after hearing the message from Apostles or early Christians. He had no issue stoning Stephen either.

P.S. I sincerely hope that out of mercy for my fingers and time I have taken to answer you all, you will read this post a little more carefully and at least think about the bolded part above.

Euro:

We are reasoning, because this is a message board–it’s the nature of the beast.

What’s more, we are human–and reasoning is necessary to our ability to communicate, between/amongst humans.

Divine Beauty on the other hand, can be communicated, absent reason. As with the Apostles.

As for Mary…the reasononing is simply sought to explain the divine. I’d suggest that even with Marian doctrine, beauty is the first attractant. Reasoning is applied ex post facto. This is particularly evident, by how much is NOT expressly provided for, in scripture. That hardly serves to suggest that reasoning preceeded the beauty of the message.

We marvel at the beauty of the overall picture that is conveyed in the salvation narrative–ONE single human being–from all time–was chosen to serve as the vessel of God–the Ark of the New Covenant; the passage way for God to become Emmanuel–that’s not just beautiful–it’s nothing less than awesome. The beauty of that concept, is awesome. Then we apply reason…then we either assent, or not.

Does reasoning lead us to conclude that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived? The Gospel (condirmed by Scripture) declares it; the beauty of the message attracts us to it; reasoning is applied…and assent either follows (Christians), or is denied–according to reason. And in some cases–perhaps even many–assent simply follows. Reason doesn’t even come in to play. It’s just taken on faith.

For that matter, do not all miracles defy reasoning, almost as a matter of definition? Not that they are required, and not that they (or fraudulent imposters of such) can’t be used for evil either–yet miracles were an integral part of Christ’s ministry, and have been recognized throughout history, for Caonnonization.

The beauty of the concept of miracles–Divine intervention–attracts us; then, reasoning is applied…then assent follows, or does not.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Euro:

We are reasoning, because this is a message board–it’s the nature of the beast.

What’s more, we are human–and reasoning is necessary to our ability to communicate, between/amongst humans.

Divine Beauty on the other hand, can be communicated, absent reason. As with the Apostles.

First, you have not yet shown this conclusively at all. As I explained, there is even an inconsistency with the facts of the Gospel narrative and what you want to claims (Jesus had not preached anything yet when he called the first Apostle. So their assent must be due to John the Baptist and his authority as a prophet).

Second, the claims you make that “Divine truths can be communicated without reason” is itself a Transcendent claim. There is no need to even believe that to be true.

In other words, if we follow what you say, we could just be believing a lie that we patched up using more Transcendent premises like "Divine truths must work this way and without reason etc…

As for Mary…the reasononing is simply sought to explain the divine. I’d suggest that even with Marian doctrine, beauty is the first attractant. Reasoning is applied ex post facto. This is particularly evident, by how much is NOT expressly provided for, in scripture. That hardly serves to suggest that reasoning preceeded the beauty of the message.

What is beauty to you is not beauty to someone else unless we speak of the strict definition of beauty. That strict definition of beauty requires you to know the ontological reality of things which again is Transcendent knowledge. So you are back to square one.

To say that beauty attracts one to the truth is logically invalid because

1. It is a Transcendent truth in itself that we cannot know to be true or false
2. It require us to already know Transcendent truths about objects which we do not know till assent

In the subjective category of beauty, some people think a Crucifix dipped in urine is a piece of art (was at an exhibition recently). So I have no clue what you are trying to say here.

We marvel at the beauty of the overall picture that is conveyed in the salvation narrative–ONE single human being–from all time–was chosen to serve as the vessel of God–the Ark of the New Covenant; the passage way for God to become Emmanuel–that’s not just beautiful–it’s nothing less than awesome. The beauty of that concept, is awesome. Then we apply reason…then we either assent, or not.

The beauty is irrelevant. IF the truth is ugly, you have to assent to it. You do realize that there is no logical rule of inference that states “Beauty = Truth”, yes?

Does reasoning lead us to conclude that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived? The Gospel (condirmed by Scripture) declares it; the beauty of the message attracts us to it; reasoning is applied…and assent either follows (Christians), or is denied–according to reason. And in some cases–perhaps even many–assent simply follows. Reason doesn’t even come in to play. It’s just taken on faith.

For that matter, do not all miracles defy reasoning, almost as a matter of definition? Not that they are required, and not that they (or fraudulent imposters of such) can’t be used for evil either–yet miracles were an integral part of Christ’s ministry, and have been recognized throughout history, for Caonnonization.

The beauty of the concept of miracles–Divine intervention–attracts us; then, reasoning is applied…then assent follows, or does not.

Now you are a bit confused. You are arguing against the position known as Rationalism. That has already been condemned by the Church and that is not what I am arguing for here.

My point here is that assent must be based purely on reason. We then believe what is revealed by that authority on faith. That is actually part of Church teaching itself. In fact, blind assent by faith is condemned under Fideism. So your request that we assent to premises such as “We know Transcendent truths because they are beautiful to us” is a Transcendent claim and is therefore asking for blind assent. We do not need to assent to such things.

The arguments here are only about who or what to assent. So one cannot assent to the Church, the Bible or anything else as an authority because it is beautiful or makes us all warm inside. It has to be because there is REASON to think they have authority. The doctrine they teach must be believed because of their authority.

So the Virgin Birth is not something we believe PRIOR to assent. We believe it because the Church tells us so.

After one has assented, then one can surrender to the beauty of it. But one must make sure that who or what they are assenting to has authority. Otherwise it is an act of deceiving oneself.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Eufrosnia;10743430]

Wait–you discredit my suggestion that the beauty of the message was what attracted the Apostles by pointing out that Christ had not yet preached (point well taken)…but then you go on to suggest that it was due to the Baptism.

But your claim that the Apostles were present at the Baptism, is as much conjecture, as mine.

Which I acknowledged in a reply to you before and therefore concluded that we both refrain from using it as evidence for either position.

I say that the chronolgy undermines your suggestion–for what reasoning could the Apostles have applied, since Christ had not yet begun to preach? They couldn’t apply reason to their decision to follow Christ, based upon what he was claiming, since He had not yet claimed anything. Nor based upon the Baptism in the Jordan, since there is no indication that they were present at such (and why wouldn’t they have begun to follow Him then, rather than waiting for Christ to find them?).

Well, how about for the simple fact that Christ never asked them to follow or said he needs followers at his baptism?

Christ did not have to claim anything. The only reason they accept Christ would be because John the Baptist claimed he was someone greater than him.

Perhaps then, with the Apostles, it was the Beauty of Truth, rather than ‘the beauty of the message’, which prompted them to follow Christ ‘blindly’ (admittedly conjecture). Either way, it does not appear that much ‘reasoning’ was applied, before assenting, and following Christ. There is nothing to buttress your contention that they reasoned before assenting.

Well no. Judging by your ideas, we would have to assume that since Christ had not yet said a single word about himself or his message, the Apostles just found Christ beautiful and therefore followed him.

In any case, both conjectures are based on speculation. So it is pointless to use these to back your argument that seems logically debunk to start with. If Apostles just assented because of some beauty reasons, that is just absurd and a discredit to them.

To be clear, I didn’t assume this–I prefaced with “if”–just in case that was the case. I wasn’t presuming to conclude that you didn’t appreciate the beauty of the Faith. No offense intended.

None taken.

Fair enough. My point however, was that the beauty of the message attracts us first; then we apply reason. Assent (or non-assent follows). Perhaps we’re not too far apart here. All I’m suggesting is that the first attractant is beauty–not reason. Assent may or may not follow reason, and it may or may not preceed reason–but assent follows Beauty–the ‘thing’ that prompts us to apply reason, or consider assenting, in the first place.

And as I keep repeating myself, your statement is itself a Transcendent claim that is unworthy of belief.

Logically and empirically speaking, it has no proof either. People think all kinds of different and heinous things beautiful and people have gotten in to trouble because they followed ideas such as yours (Cults of Jim Jones, David Koresh)

But what attracted you to apply reason to the Church’s authority in the first place?

And assuming you’re a cradle Catholic (as I am)–what of those who came to the Faith, having already achieved the ‘age of reason’? Did they reason first, get to the Church’s authority by reason, and then say 'hey, this is beautiful!"? Or is the more likely scenario more like…'hey man, those Christians got it going on!..I want in!" i.e.–the beauty attracts; then reason, and/or assent, follows.

e.g.–where assent preceeds reason–“I don’t care how they got there, or how they do it…I just want to be a part of it…I want in!”;

e.g.–where assent follows reason: “this is beautiful–I might want to be a part of it–but first, I must understand what they’re about”.

Both hypos are plausible; both surely reflect the path of many, respectively. Neither excludes the other; and in both cases, the beauty attracts first. Assent and/or reason follow.

Because I wanted to know the truth regarding the Transcendent. Naturally, the Church was one of things I had to analyze among a lot of others who claimed to have Transcendent knowledge.

You don’t analyze because something is beautiful. That is bad analysis and bad way of searching for the truth. You have to be prepared to weigh and objectively analyze anyone who claims they have Transcendent truths.

Second–YOU are not under some illusion that it must be the same for everyone? I thought that’s what your whole OP and this thread was about–I thought you were suggesting that ASSENT must necessarily follow REASON–that without reasoning first, it would not be reasonable to assent.

Have I misunderstood?

No you have not. Assent must always be due to reason to think the person or book has authority. Otherwise it is unreasonable and absurd.

Question, someone could think it beautiful that fairies exist. Would it be right for them to assent to that?

Now someone might think that God becoming man is disgraceful, ugly and not something he would ever do. So Christianity is a religion with a ugly claim at its core. Would it be right for them to reject Christianity on that basis?

We should all be after the truth. Not beauty. We should analyze all claimants equally without bias. If the truth is ugly under our current perception, we still should be ready to assent if the claimant has authority.

 

[brb3]

If first comes faith, then how do you even know if you believe in the right thing? Because won’t you just try to justify whatever it is that you believe using “I just have faith”?

Answer the following. If I told you that first comes faith and all the Marian doctrines are just from faith, the Church has authority is just from faith, and that Protestants are wrong is just by faith. We just know them to be true, what would you have to say? What can you even use to say “Eufrosnia, that does not make sense because ____________” (fill in the blank).

The Church teaches the water baptism of infants ‘removes’ OS. The ‘faith’ of the parents / godparents … makes it efficacious to the infants/little children.

Now, when that infant grows up … they develop reason skills, and can decide if they wish to be ‘confirmed’ in HS … or not. That’s the reasoning phase. We come to Christ by simple faith … we grow to maturity via reasoning and desire to remain with Christ via the Church !!

 

[brb3]

Euro …

Take the example of the Protestant Christian. And, we know there are many !! So says our Popes and Magi.

They often have defective ‘reasoning’ / rationales about this-or-that of the faith … but, its their FAITH in the Gospel message that has saved, and continues to ‘save’ them.

Some will never know the ‘fuller truths’ of the Catholic Church, via ignorance, poorly Catechized/Indoctrinated, etc.

Still, Christianity is MAINLY a religion of the poor, the uneducated, the down and outs, etc. It is their ‘simple faiths, like children’ … that save and continue to save them.

It is the elites, the educated, the wisemen in this world … who more often reject the Gospel message. Why, …because they wish to understand it fully from human reasoning standpoint FIRST !! And, when they try to do so only by reasoning … they fail. Faith is the sine-quo-non … it is the essential ingredient … that God provide us. Not of works …lest anyman/woman might boast !!

 

[Eufrosnia]

The Church teaches the water baptism of infants ‘removes’ OS. The ‘faith’ of the parents / godparents … makes it efficacious to the infants/little children.

Now, when that infant grows up … they develop reason skills, and can decide if they wish to be ‘confirmed’ in HS … or not. That’s the reasoning phase. We come to Christ by simple faith … we grow to maturity via reasoning and desire to remain with Christ via the Church !!

Um, you did not answer my question, no? The Church has already condemned Fideism so you cannot really tell me to accept what you say because the “Church says so”.

So how about an answer to my question?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Euro …

Take the example of the Protestant Christian. And, we know there are many !! So says our Popes and Magi.

They often have defective ‘reasoning’ / rationales about this-or-that of the faith … but, its their FAITH in the Gospel message that has saved, and continues to ‘save’ them.

Some will never know the ‘fuller truths’ of the Catholic Church, via ignorance, poorly Catechized/Indoctrinated, etc.

Still, Christianity is MAINLY a religion of the poor, the uneducated, the down and outs, etc. It is their ‘simple faiths, like children’ … that save and continue to save them.

It is the elites, the educated, the wisemen in this world … who more often reject the Gospel message. Why, …because they wish to understand it fully from human reasoning standpoint FIRST !! And, when they try to do so only by reasoning … they fail. Faith is the sine-quo-non … it is the essential ingredient … that God provide us. Not of works …lest anyman/woman might boast !!

So do you have anything to say to the poor and uneducated people (some of them were actually educated too) who put a child like trust and faith in Jim Jones or David Koresh?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

Can you explain how you would go about telling them that they are wrong? Because they believe strongly by FAITH that these men were who they claimed to be. I am very much looking forward to your answer so please don’t skip this one.