Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eufrosnia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eufrosnia;10745831]
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).
Not at all. Why pray tell MUST they assent to John the Baptitst??? Who was he of any significance, aside from his kinship to Christ???

It was GOD’S pronouncement, through the ‘Spririt of God’ that appeared as a dove, that made that Christ’s divinity apparent–not the act of baptism. And again, NO mention of the Aposltes there, at all.
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.
Why not? I say it’s possible. Disprove that assertion. You can only do so, by proving that it is IMpossible.
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…
Strawman–‘must work that way’ implies necessity. you’re the one arguing in absolutes.

i.e.—Assent MUST follow reason.
To say that beauty attracts one to the truth is logically invalid because
Who said this at all? I said beauty attracts. It may attract to teh Truth; it may attract to lies; it may attract to danger or death. It simply attracts.

…
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?
Assent isn’t Truth either; neither is reason. Pointless observation.

…
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.
See below.
The arguments here are only about who or what to assent. So one cannotassent to the Church, the Bible or anything else as an authority because it is beautiful or makes us all warm inside. It has to bebecause there is REASON to think they have authority. The doctrine they teach must be believed because of their authority.
…

See below.
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.
Now…just to be clear here…WHO IS SPEAKING IN ABSOLUTES?

That would be you, sir.

Note: Attempting to disprove my generalization–that Beauty attracts first–with one or two examples that don’t fit the generalization–does not disprove the generalization.

However, one example that contradicts your absolute assertion, disproves your absolute assertion.
  1. the Apostles can not be proven to have assented upon reason;
  2. St. Augustine reasoned himself in circles, to no avail…but, one beautific vision (with St. Moncia)–which incidentally, he described in the most eloquent language, as essentially, ‘beautiful’–and bam, he was converted;
  3. 1.1 billion Catholics. Can you honestly assert–with a straight face–that NOT ONE of these Catholics, assented without reason???
That’s just plain silly.
 
^^^follow up:

Of those 1.1 billion Catholics–my hpyothetical (yet undeniable) one–who assented to the Faith, without reason–is the Truth somehow compromised, because (s)he did not apply reason before assenting?

…or might such a person simply be fortunate? Perhaps blessed?
 
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
Wow … why not add Hitler to your list. And his followers highly educated, using their ‘reasoning’ abilities to justify their actions and support of the Dictator !

Don’t you see error is made on both sides of the fence. Some err in their faith… some in their reasoning.
 
Wow … why not add Hitler to your list. And his followers highly educated, using their ‘reasoning’ abilities to justify their actions and support of the Dictator !

Don’t you see error is made on both sides of the fence. Some err in their faith… some in their reasoning.
I see error in incorrect use of reason and use of no reason. I** do not see any error in people who would use correct reason.
**
Do you disagree? Or are you saying that if I were to use correct reason, I will not be able to know that the Catholic faith is the true faith? Because that is a condemned proposition of the Church. Only Protestants support that position and for reasons that have been made clear throughout this thread.
 
Eufrosnia;10745831]
Not at all. Why pray tell MUST they assent to John the Baptitst??? Who was he of any significance, aside from his kinship to Christ???

It was GOD’S pronouncement, through the ‘Spririt of God’ that appeared as a dove, that made that Christ’s divinity apparent–not the act of baptism. And again, NO mention of the Aposltes there, at all.
Why would there be a mention of Apostles? And please, lets cut to the chase here. Both our positions cannot be backed using this specific point in the narrative. OK? Do you understand that? You brought this up first as if it backed your position. I only pointed out that the assent of the Apostles could have well been through reason. Now you have made that in to a discussion.

As for John the Baptist, I would assume that he did miracles himself to justify that he is indeed a Prophet of God. So naturally, he would have established his authority just as other OT prophets did.
Why not? I say it’s possible. Disprove that assertion. You can only do so, by proving that it is IMpossible.
You do realize that just because I cannot disprove it, does not mean we should believe it true, yes? The right position is to remain agnostic with respect to the issue. NOT just believe it true 🤷
Strawman–‘must work that way’ implies necessity. you’re the one arguing in absolutes.

i.e.—Assent MUST follow reason.
Assent MUST follow reason. People should not behave UNREASONABLY. If you really disagree with this, why on earth are you even bothering to reason with me?
Who said this at all? I said beauty attracts. It may attract to teh Truth; it may attract to lies; it may attract to danger or death. It simply attracts.
And I am telling you that it is not only beauty that attracts. Every twisted and messed up thing could be just as attractive depending on how you were brought up. So your point of using beauty as a starting point is madness.
Assent isn’t Truth either; neither is reason. Pointless observation.
WHAT? Are you denying efficacy of reason now?
Now…just to be clear here…WHO IS SPEAKING IN ABSOLUTES?
I certainly AM. I would think it obvious to some person when I say that X is not the same as NOT X. Just as that is an absolute, the fact that we should not believe things without reason should be just as obvious.

You saying otherwise is absurd. Who in their right mind assents to some thing they feel like it is true?
Note: Attempting to disprove my generalization–that Beauty attracts first–with one or two examples that don’t fit the generalization–does not disprove the generalization.

However, one example that contradicts your absolute assertion, disproves your absolute assertion.
  1. the Apostles can not be proven to have assented upon reason;
Immediately wrong. Just because Apostles cannot be proven to have assented using Reason does not give you the right to jump in and assume the most unreasonable conclusion i.e. They assented because of the beauty (of Christ’s physical appearance?)
  1. St. Augustine reasoned himself in circles, to no avail…but, one beautific vision (with St. Moncia)–which incidentally, he described in the most eloquent language, as essentially, ‘beautiful’–and bam, he was converted;
With all due respect, if I had a private Divine Revelation straight up, that itself is REASON to believe. But no one is right in believing messages claimed to be by God or Angels based on beauty. That is absurd.
  1. 1.1 billion Catholics. Can you honestly assert–with a straight face–that NOT ONE of these Catholics, assented without reason???
That’s just plain silly.
Oh no, you misunderstand. There are probably many Catholics, I am assuming like yourself, who assented without reason. That is why their kids are leaving the faith by the droves as soon as they realize the absurdity of it all. Oh and not to mention those who leave the faith and start their own little faith based on their own speculations of the Transcendent which they think are more beautiful.

In the end, regardless of how much you want to write, what you say is UNREASONABLE. Assenting based on beauty is arbitrary and absurd. It is ignorance of the fact that people consider different contradictory things to be beautiful.

People analyze religion BECAUSE THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH. NO ONE is ATTRACTED TO THE TRUTH. There are no LIVING TRUTH DETECTORS.

IF YOU want to say that there are, you have to GIVE REASONS for us to think so. Till then, we must remain agnostic about the fact. It is not worthy of assent.
 
^^^follow up:

Of those 1.1 billion Catholics–my hpyothetical (yet undeniable) one–who assented to the Faith, without reason–is the Truth somehow compromised, because (s)he did not apply reason before assenting?

…or might such a person simply be fortunate? Perhaps blessed?
Till they have completed their journey, we don’t know. They might end up being the heretic that branches off and makes his own religion by mixing and matching “beautiful” things in each religion and rejecting the “ugly” in them.

We can only even say that they are blessed if they persevere in the Catholic faith BECAUSE WE KNOW IT IS TRUE BY REASON. OTHERWISE WE SHOULD PITY THE FOOL and EVANGELIZE HIM/HER out of that error. Not using beauty but through REASON.
 
Eufrosnia;10747481]
Why would there be a mention of Apostles? And please, lets cut to the chase here. Both our positions cannot be backed using this specific point in the narrative. OK? Do you understand that? You brought this up first as if it backed your position. I only pointed out that the assent of the Apostles could have well been through reason. Now you have made that in to a discussion.
Backpeddle. You asserted that the Apostles MUST have assented due to John the Baptist…here is exactly your quote, c&p’d:
(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).
What the heck is that based on? That’s just pure conjecture.
You do realize that just because I cannot disprove it, does not mean we should believe it true, yes? The right position is to remain agnostic with respect to the issue. NOT just believe it true 🤷
My point with asserting that, was addressed you your absolutes–not actually asserting that actual point.
Assent MUST follow reason. People should not behave UNREASONABLY. If you really disagree with this, ***why on earth are you even bothering to reason with me? ***
🤷

For kicks… 😉
And I am telling you that it is not only beauty that attracts. Every twisted and messed up thing could be just as attractive depending on how you were brought up. So your point of using beauty as a starting point is madness.
oh boy.

Beauty: A quality that pleases or delights the mind. --Am. Heritage dictionary.
WHAT? Are you denying efficacy of reason now?
What??? Are YOU suggesting that assent IS Truth??? That REASON is Truth???

Assent: to agree, concur;

Reason: the capacity for logical, rational and anaylyic thought;

Truth: Reality; actuality. Conformity to fact or actuality.
--Am. Heritage dictionary.

See the difference?

Assent/Reason not= to Truth.
I certainly AM. I would think it obvious to some person when I say that X is not the same as NOT X. Just as that is an absolute, the fact that we should not believe things without reason should be just as obvious.
Ok, but did you even notice how you shifted of goal posts there?

NOTE: ***"…we SHOULD NOT believe things without reason…" ***

Is NOT the same as the absolutes:
My point here is that assent must be based purely on reason…
…So one cannot assent to the Church, the Bible or anything else as an authority because it is beautiful… It has to bebecause there is REASON to think they have authority…
…But one must make sure that who or what they are assenting to has authority. Otherwise it is an act of deceiving oneself.
…
Immediately wrong. Just because Apostles cannot be proven to have assented using Reason does not give you the right to jump in and assume the most unreasonable conclusion i.e. They assented because of the beauty (of Christ’s physical appearance?)
Wow. Who said ANYTHING AT ALL about Christ’s PHYSICAL APPEARANCE???

Again:

Beauty: A quality that pleases or delights the mind. --Am. Heritage dictionary.
With all due respect, if I had a private Divine Revelation straight up, that itself is REASON to believe. But no one is right in believing messages claimed to be by God or Angels based on beauty. That is absurd.
Yet they are always described in terms of stunning beauty–

e.g.–St. Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle; St. John of the Cross’s Ascent to Mt. Carmel; St. Augustine’s Confessions…just to name a few.
Oh no, you misunderstand. There are probably many Catholics, I am assuming like yourself, who assented without reason. That is why their kids are leaving the faith by the droves as soon as they realize the absurdity of it all. Oh and not to mention those who leave the faith and start their own little faith based on their own speculations of the Transcendent which they think are more beautiful.
IMO, kids leave because we fail to show them the beauty of the faith, and therefore they succomb to teh sex appeal of sin, secularism, cynical atheism, intellectual agnoticism, materialism, commercialism, enlightened thinking, etc., etc.–not because they failed to reason their faith adequately.

NOTE: is it a coincicendence that some of the highest rates of defection from the Church, is CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES?!?!
In the end, regardless of how much you want to write, what you say is UNREASONABLE. Assenting based on beauty is arbitrary and absurd. It is ignorance of the fact that people consider different contradictory things to be beautiful.
Let’s just be perfectly clear here, Euffro: that’s your OPINION.

Hardly an absolute fact, as you have asserted. 🙂
People analyze religion BECAUSE THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH. NO ONE is ATTRACTED TO THE TRUTH. There are no LIVING TRUTH DETECTORS.
There you go again, with your absolutes…🙂

Actually, many are repelled by teh Truth. Committed sinners fear teh light, for fear of being exposed.

Their fear, is quite reasonable. 😉
 
Eufrosnia;10747481]

Backpeddle. You asserted that the Apostles MUST have assented due to John the Baptist…here is exactly your quote, c&p’d:

What the heck is that based on? That’s just pure conjecture.
I am just saying that it does not make sense for you to conjecture that the Apostles were unreasonable people who assented because they felt Christ was good looking.
My point with asserting that, was addressed you your absolutes–not actually asserting that actual point.
?
oh boy.

Beauty: A quality that pleases or delights the mind. --Am. Heritage dictionary.
And that same beauty is felt by many in different things. Some in the bloodshed, some in rape, some in blasphemous images, so what is your point?
What??? Are YOU suggesting that assent IS Truth??? That REASON is Truth???
What reason reveals is TRUTH, yes. To say otherwise is a meaningless statement.
Assent/Reason not= to Truth.
Reason reveals truths. To be unreasonable is therefore absurd.
Ok, but did you even notice how you shifted of goal posts there?

NOTE: ***"…we SHOULD NOT believe things without reason…" ***

Is NOT the same as the absolutes:
What do you want me to say? Honestly please say it? I have repeated my self adnauseum here that to believe someone, something, some message because it is beautiful is ABSURD. I mean that with absoluteness like we hold the Principle of Contradiction. OK?
Wow. Who said ANYTHING AT ALL about Christ’s PHYSICAL APPEARANCE???

Again:

Beauty: A quality that pleases or delights the mind. --Am. Heritage dictionary.
I can read the dictionary too. But what you seem to don’t want to face is the empirical evidence that different people find different things beautiful.

Aside, there are more stricter objective definitions of beauty in philosophy.
Yet they are always described in terms of stunning beauty–

e.g.–St. Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle; St. John of the Cross’s Ascent to Mt. Carmel; St. Augustine’s Confessions…just to name a few.
All of these could be garbage to some.
IMO, kids leave because we fail to show them the beauty of the faith, and therefore they succomb to teh sex appeal of sin, secularism, cynical atheism, intellectual agnoticism, materialism, commercialism, enlightened thinking, etc., etc.–not because they failed to reason their faith adequately.

NOTE: is it a coincicendence that some of the highest rates of defection from the Church, is CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES?!?!
WOW, really? Who wants to believe something because it is beautiful? This is absurd.
Let’s just be perfectly clear here, Euffro: that’s your OPINION.
Lets be perfectly clear here, ILLOGICAL is not my opinion. IT IS OBJECTIVE FACT. Ok? To assent based on beauty of a message or person is ILLOGICAL.

Now let me try to explain this to you in a more formal manner as to why your position is indeed illogical.

Are you familiar with “Proof by counter example”?

Your premise
  1. Truth can be seen from its beauty
    **
    Counter examples**
**There are those who saw beauty in the messages of Jim Jones, David Koresh. There are those who saw beauty in Arianism. There are those who saw beauty in having racial segregation. There are those who saw beauty in blasphemous images. There are those who saw beauty in Calvinism. All of those are things you know to be false and not resemble anything true.
**
So your position is done. It has been proven by counter example to be false. Now do you have anything to say to that and at least take the time to refine your position? Or would you like me to still believe it true even though it is illogical?

P.S. You know what the biggest joke in all of this is? You might as well replace the phenomenon “Beauty” with “Guidance/Urgings of the Holy Spirit” and you have Protestantism!
 
Beauty: A quality that pleases or delights the mind. --Am. Heritage dictionary.onable
.

Please read the above reply but I also want to add something more here.

First off, your position can be seen to be empirically invalid. There are just too many counter examples of people and even groups of people who saw beauty in erroneous claims, ideologies and frameworks.

But here you might decide to say the following. Some of these were lead to the true beauty. As great as that maybe, since no one who is lead can know the difference between whether they are lead to true facts or false facts, this attraction is ultimately useless.

Also, you did not address what I said about the universal need to discover the truth being the sole reason one must analyze and study religions to see if there is reason to assent. Instead, you keep insisting on a position that is clear as day to be empirically invalid, and hence also logically impossible. Why is that? Is it because that is how you assented and now you feel the need to justify your assent?

Though you don’t seem to get it, the reason why people abandon religion is because of their search for the truth. They are told, by people like you, that what they feel beautiful must be true. Then they see things like gay marriage, women’s right to choose, sex without the burden of children as beautiful things. Then they see that there is really no reason that their parents have to tell them other than their faith is “beautiful” or that it makes them feel better. But they see beauty in other things and they feel better about other things. So they eventually leave the faith. The others just reason that “it making me feel good or being beautiful is not evidence it is true” will also abandon their faith because they realize that beautiful things are not always true.

My mind can feel attracted to a narrative and lore like Lord of the Rings. But it does not make it TRUE.
 
So something that I have noticed with most of the threads on this part of the forum is that they tend to have a theological issue that is debated to infinity with Catholics vs. Protestants getting nowhere. In general, the Catholics walk off more Catholic and the Protestant walks off more Protestant. Both sides have simply assented to an (albeit different) authority already.

So if we have two authorities, then we have two different theologies. One cannot therefore assess the other camp theologically because both sides differ already at the core.

The question we all want to bypass or sometimes even ignore in all of this is that of Authority.

Now why is this question important?

It is important because every religion on this earth makes a set of supernatural claims.

Since we cannot directly verify supernatural claims as humans, we have to trust the person or persons claiming these truths.

But to do so, we must first know
  1. that the person has authority to know supernatural truths, and
  2. what truths the person (or persons) taught
Now both of the above must be knowable within the realm of day-to-day reasoning (which we will refer to as natural reasoning for convenience) .

So the Catholic claim for (1) is that Jesus proved his authority to know and control the supernatural through his death and resurrection and that it is a historically verifiable fact. This is pretty much what all Protestants would claim as well (other than those who hold a modernist view that it is a spiritual resurrection).

The division between Catholics and Protestants then take place on point (2) on what Jesus taught.

The Church is then judged using the Bible.

B]Now it must be noted that either of the claims must be accessible through natural reasoning and otherwise we must conclude that we just don’t know what Christ taught.
Now I would first like to handle the arguments for (2) from the Protestant side

a) It says in Scripture that it is inspired by God
b) Therefore it is the Word of God

Problem with the above is that I can write a book and include a sentence that it is the Word of God.

That does not make it true.

a) When reading Scripture, one sees that it is indeed the Word of God

But “X is the Word of God” is a supernatural claim. Since we cannot directly perceive the supernatural, we cannot make such claims.

Now one can present the objection to the Protestant claim as follows

1a) “Scripture is inspired by God” is a Supernatural claim
2a) Supernatural claims are not directly verifiable
3a) Therefore the claim must be made by a person or an entity that one can decide through reason to possess knowledge and be authoritative on the Supernatural.

So the (3a) requires that we have another authority that has either proven itself as Christ did or can be seen to have some authority to teach what Christ taught.

Now in our human understanding, teaching authority is usually passed down by the teacher to a selected set of students.

This is so intuitive to us that this is how we maintain all our professional bodies and their fields of knowledge as well as academic structures.

When we want medical advise, we turn to a certified Doctor.

Same with Engineers, Lawyers etc.

So anything that we cannot verify directly by ourselves is accepted through a certified authority.

In the same way, Catholics see Christ’s Apostles as worthy of being considered as having the authority of Christ.

Now treating Scriptures as nothing more than historical accounts of Christ, we know that among many Disciples (students) of Christ, 12 were specifically chosen and had a more closer relationship with Christ.

Therefore it seems reasonable that these 12 were given the knowledge and authority to teach what Christ taught about supernatural truths. Thus we have the birth of a field of knowledge regarding the supernatural and its caretakers, experts and teachers.

Now these Apostles themselves had students of their own that they selected.

They would be the Apostolic Successors. In the same way, this field of knowledge has been maintained, passed down and taught by Apostolic Successors to this day.

Therefore, anyone who wants to know what Christ taught must assent to the authority of the Church consisting of Apostolic Successors.

The Church itself has defined its scope and extent of authority through the centuries, just like any other professional body in charge of a field.

So we accept that and all of its teachings by faith.

Therefore the Catholic accepts all supernatural claims such as “Scripture is the Word of God” or “God is a Holy Trinity” through faith in what the Church teaches.

Also, unlike Protestants,

the Catholic recognizes that the Church has claimed it to be the final authority in interpreting Divine revelation, whether it be Scripture or Tradition.

So in all things,

the faithful assents to the Church and strives to interpret Divine Revelation within the guidance of the Church.

So now that I have made the Catholic position clear and presented objections to the Protestant position.

Let the discussion begin!

hhello-- this was a funny game-- and i wouldn’t want to get lost in your human reasoning–

what is lacking – as in many church’s is the Holy Spirit–
 
hhello-- this was a funny game-- and i wouldn’t want to get lost in your human reasoning–

what is lacking – as in many church’s is the Holy Spirit–
2 To know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding;

3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity;

4 To give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:

6 To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.

7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
 
With all due respect, if I had a private Divine Revelation straight up, that itself is REASON to believe.
Indeed … and that is the surest, most convincing proof we can have. Look what it did for the Apostles, when they saw the risen Christ, and all got to place hands in his pierced hands/side. All but John went to deaths as Martyrs, and tradition has it John was boiled in oil… and survived the event.

Now, what Divine Revelation does Christ offer each of us today ? Christ said it was better he go away, and leave the 12 … so that he would send them/us the Paraclete.
So, Christ implies the HS is ‘better’ proof for us, than if we could actually see him on a single occasion. That is quite a claim !!

Can David Koresh, Jim Jones, Simon Magnus, or anyone else offer us such a divine revelation … straight up ?
 
Indeed … and that is the surest, most convincing proof we can have. Look what it did for the Apostles, when they saw the risen Christ, and all got to place hands in his pierced hands/side. All but John went to deaths as Martyrs, and tradition has it John was boiled in oil… and survived the event.

Now, what Divine Revelation does Christ offer each of us today ? Christ said it was better he go away, and leave the 12 … so that he would send them/us the Paraclete.
So, Christ implies the HS is ‘better’ proof for us, than if we could actually see him on a single occasion. That is quite a claim !!

Can David Koresh, Jim Jones, Simon Magnus, or anyone else offer us such a divine revelation … straight up ?
So wait, I am kind of confused. You are saying that you have been receiving daily private divine revelations? Like you see the Holy Spirit, maybe even Christ, and he speaks to you and tells you “Son, this is what I meant over here” etc? I mean if that is the case, I have certainly not had that as a Catholic and would be very deeply interested in converting to your faith 🙂

What do you also mean by “HS is better proof for us” and how did you know what Christ meant? Is it possible that you are mistaken?
 
hhello-- this was a funny game-- and i wouldn’t want to get lost in your human reasoning–

what is lacking – as in many church’s is the Holy Spirit–
What you are failing to understand, like many others here, is that before assent, no one can know or believe that the Holy Spirit exists without any reason 🙂
 
So wait, I am kind of confused. … I have certainly not had that as a Catholic and would be very deeply interested in converting to your faith 🙂

What do you also mean by “HS is better proof for us” and how did you know what Christ meant? Is it possible that you are mistaken?
You jest ! Surely you know the scriptures on this in John. And, you know the CCC teaching on this subject in ‘great detail’ … fully footnoted !! And, you know about the Eucharista ‘real presence’ of Christ to us.

If I’m mistaken … then so were the Apostles, the ECF’s, Mary, and All the Saints. But, as you well know … Christ doesn’t trifle with us in scripture, and the Father always Keeps his Promises, and with the HS … we have Christ 24 X 7 !! What a ‘divine revelation’ !! What a REASON TO BELIEVE !! What a way to ‘persevere’ in the Faith !!

“Authority, we don’t need no stinking authority” … just teasing 😉 We absolutely need it … and have it with H.S. and Catholic Church.
 
You jest ! Surely you know the scriptures on this in John. And, you know the CCC teaching on this subject in ‘great detail’ … fully footnoted !! And, you know about the Eucharista ‘real presence’ of Christ to us.

If I’m mistaken … then so were the Apostles, the ECF’s, Mary, and All the Saints. But, as you well know … Christ doesn’t trifle with us in scripture, and the Father always Keeps his Promises, and with the HS … we have Christ 24 X 7 !! What a ‘divine revelation’ !! What a REASON TO BELIEVE !! What a way to ‘persevere’ in the Faith !!

“Authority, we don’t need no stinking authority” … just teasing 😉 We absolutely need it … and have it with H.S. and Catholic Church.
I am not sure I understand. The real presence of Christ is not denied here. But I can tell you that no one has yet told me that receiving the Eucharist made them see Christ and the Holy Spirit coming down and then explain to them what Scripture means… Is that what happens to you?

Also, how do you know that the Holy Spirit guides each individual to the true interpretation of Scripture? Because you have to admit, you do quote a lot of Scripture and paraphrase what it means. But if you do not have guidance by the Holy Spirit you are possibly in error, yes? So how did you come to know that you have such individual guidance? The Church does not teach this either as far as I know.
 
…
Lets be perfectly clear here, ILLOGICAL is not my opinion. IT IS OBJECTIVE FACT. Ok? To assent based on beauty of a message or person is ILLOGICAL.

Now let me try to explain this to you in a more formal manner as to why your position is indeed illogical.

Are you familiar with “Proof by counter example”?

Your premise
  1. Truth can be seen from its beauty
    **
    Counter examples**
**There are those who saw beauty in the messages of Jim Jones, David Koresh. There are those who saw beauty in Arianism. There are those who saw beauty in having racial segregation. There are those who saw beauty in blasphemous images. There are those who saw beauty in Calvinism. All of those are things you know to be false and not resemble anything true.
**
So your position is done. It has been proven by counter example to be false. Now do you have anything to say to that and at least take the time to refine your position? Or would you like me to still believe it true even though it is illogical?

P.S. You know what the biggest joke in all of this is? You might as well replace the phenomenon “Beauty” with “Guidance/Urgings of the Holy Spirit” and you have Protestantism!
First of all, you have continuously misrepresented my position–the only way you can defeat it, is by constructing one strawman after another. Wonderful! You beat the **** out of a bunch of strawmen! whoo whoo for you!

Secondly–taking this latest mutilation, and running with it–because at least here, you have not imputed your own absolutism to it–in order to disprove that X can lead to Truth, you must prove that X can NOT lead to Truth.

A handful of counter examples does not defeat a general proposition. Period.

That’s logic 101.

Third: Do you pretend to be a more reputable Christian, that St. Teresa of Avila? St. John of the Cross? St. Augustine? How about St. Francis? An inate object, in the form of a cross, spoke to him. That is objecively unreasonable. You cannot reconcile that notion, with reason.

The simple fact, is that you’ve blown up an entire thread, 190+ posts deep, with an absolute assertion that is completely untenable.

The simple fact, is that not just one person has assented absent reason–MANY HAVE.

Your hypothesis failed when the first person assented without reason; it is obliterated, by the milllions upon millions of cradle Catholics who assented BEFORE applying reason, if they ever apply reason at all.

…and none of this has anything at all to do with protestantism. Nothing. This is the first time in this thread that the word protestant as even come off my keyboard. It has NOTHING to do with assent vis a vis reason.

My contention with ‘beauty’ was a generalization–of what attracts us first, and impels us to apply reason. But it is quite simply unnecessary. Interesting to me…apparently ‘absurd’ to you–but frankly, not really relevant or necessary.

Bottom line: your absolute assertion =FAIL. Period.

You’ll have to amend your hypothesis to allow for those abusrdly offense fools–hundreds of millions over teh centuries–who failed to meet your arbitrarily imposed standard, and assented on faith alone–then subsequently, applied reason (or never bothered to).

The irony frankly, is that for all your talk about applying reason…you fail miserably at the most basic LOGIC.

An absoloute assertion is disproven by just one exception; a generalization is not necessarily disproven, even by several exceptions.

😃
 
Part 1 of 2
First of all, you have continuously misrepresented my position–the only way you can defeat it, is by constructing one strawman after another. Wonderful! You beat the **** out of a bunch of strawmen! whoo whoo for you!
Well, I would think this is usually the point where any reasonable person decides to say “Hey, I think you misunderstood, this is what I mean …”, yes? Instead, I have nothing from you to even reevaluate your position.
Secondly–taking this latest mutilation, and running with it–because at least here, you have not imputed your own absolutism to it–in order to disprove that X can lead to Truth, you must prove that X can NOT lead to Truth.

A handful of counter examples does not defeat a general proposition. Period.

That’s logic 101.
I am not sure you understand logic then. If you propose a certain proposition as true, in this case that proposition is “Our attraction to its beauty is reason to assent to it”, it only takes ONE counter example to disprove that proposition. Please read that again, ONE counter example. I only provided more than one to show you how trivially obvious your error should be.
Third: Do you pretend to be a more reputable Christian, that St. Teresa of Avila? St. John of the Cross? St. Augustine? How about St. Francis? An inate object, in the form of a cross, spoke to him. That is objecively unreasonable. You cannot reconcile that notion, with reason.
This is where I step in and say that you don’t seem to understand what I am even saying. One moment, you argue against rationalism (which I would join you to do), but then the other minute you argue FOR fideism (which I cannot join you with).

As for those saints, you have not shown or cannot even show that they assent to authority without reason. Instead, you speak of how they obviously must have assented to Transcendent claims on faith. Well, who says they should not? The point here is that they are only reasonable in assenting to Transcendent claims when it is from an entity that one can verify through REASON to have expertise/authority. Otherwise, it is an absurd thing to do.

None of the saints to my best knowledge are guilty of such absurdities.
The simple fact, is that you’ve blown up an entire thread, 190+ posts deep, with an absolute assertion that is completely untenable.
Actually, I’ve blown it 190 posts deep because some people want to argue using reason to justify being unreasonable. It takes quiet a number of posts to get that straightened out.
The simple fact, is that not just one person has assented absent reason–MANY HAVE.
Well, who says many have not? Whether they are reasonable in doing so is another matter, yes? And we can all agree that assenting without reason is absurd because of the counter examples I provided.
Your hypothesis failed when the first person assented without reason; it is obliterated, by the milllions upon millions of cradle Catholics who assented BEFORE applying reason, if they ever apply reason at all.
Incorrect. I am not hypothesizing on some empirical “how it used to be”. I am pointing out how things should be. Since we do not accept truths without reason, it is unreasonable to ask to assent to something as true based on beauty. Why? Because there are empirical counter examples that show people assenting to all kinds of falsities based on such a metric.
…and none of this has anything at all to do with protestantism. Nothing. This is the first time in this thread that the word protestant as even come off my keyboard. It has NOTHING to do with assent vis a vis reason.
Please take a step back from this thread and read what FIDEISM is and why the Church condemned it, ok? Protestantism has a lot to do with “assent without reason”.

(Continued to Part 2)
 
**Part 2 of 2 **
My contention with ‘beauty’ was a generalization–of what attracts us first, and impels us to apply reason. But it is quite simply unnecessary. Interesting to me…apparently ‘absurd’ to you–but frankly, not really relevant or necessary.
It is absurd because it is not an objective measure. There is proof that many have been lead astray in relying on beauty. So it is not just unnecessary. It is absurd.
Bottom line: your absolute assertion =FAIL. Period.
Bottom line is that you can’t seem to understand proof by counter example. So you believe in something that is logically invalid.
You’ll have to amend your hypothesis to allow for those abusrdly offense fools–hundreds of millions over teh centuries–who failed to meet your arbitrarily imposed standard, and assented on faith alone–then subsequently, applied reason (or never bothered to).
You do realize that these absurdities are the very reason why we have people who believe in other religions than Catholicism, yes? Or did you forget that?
The irony frankly, is that for all your talk about applying reason…you fail miserably at the most basic LOGIC.
Yes, I can certainly see whose failing by your comments on proof by counter example.
An absoloute assertion is disproven by just one exception; a generalization is not necessarily disproven, even by several exceptions.
😃
You seem to fail to understand that this position is not empirical fact. This position is about how things should be. It is derived from the fact that humanity is reasonable, a naturally intuitive truth.

So the position in the OP simply states how it is absurd for anyone to just blindly assent to any authority as possessing Transcendent claims without reason. This is an absolute fact.

You then go on to say that NO, we can figure out who has authority by first assenting to the Transcendent claims themselves (because of their beauty). My point is that such mechanism is absurd because people should not assent to any Transcendent claim unless there is reason to think so. Since there is no way to reason to Transcendent claims themselves, the only alternative is to reason to the authority that proclaims Transcendent claims.

Nothing I said above is illogical. It is merely speaking of how things should be. In other words, it is a statement similar to saying

“We should not assent to a Theory of physics as true because we feel like its true/beautiful etc”

If we don’t know physics, we should only assent because the person proclaiming the theory is an expert/authority in the field. If we are a physicist, our assent should be because we ourselves have discovered evidence for it.

To do otherwise is indeed absurd. Same with religion.
 
I am not sure I understand. …
Also, how do you know that the Holy Spirit guides each individual to the true interpretation of Scripture?
Scriptures confirm it .
Paul taught the method to Timothy in 2 Cor. 2:15.
John, in his Gospel writings quotes Christ on this matter.

How do the Protestant manage, apart from the CC & Pope ?
Those who seek, will find. God does not withhold his grace from those outside the CC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top