Assenting to Authority (Protestant vs. Catholic)

[Goya]

Eufrosnia;10749107]**Part 2 of 2 **

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.

First, you’re the only person who says it’s absurd.

Second, what you say is absurd, isn’t even what I have said, but your consistent mutilations of what I have said.

Third, just because you declare it to be absurd, doesn’t make it so–just makes it what it always was—YOUR OPINION.

Bottom line is that you can’t seem to understand proof by counter example. So you believe in something that is logically invalid.

Nonsense. You do not understand simple, basic, elementary logic.

If I say people generally like to have fun–you may dispute that with counter examples–but

"…well my grampappy don’t like to have no fun’ &
“…I knew a bubba in high school didn’t like to have him no fun” &
“…and my wife ain’t no fun”–

Does not DISPROVE the general proposition. It may dispute it; perhaps…but it does not DISPROVE IT.

Notwithstanding what your granpappy, your HS buddy and your wife think about fun…the general proposition MAY still stand.

ON the other hand:

ONE MUST DO X. TO ARRIVE AT Y

One need only show ONE CASE of someone arriving at Y, without doing X, and the absoulte assertion is disproven.

or X MUST BE BASED PURELY ON Y

Just one case of X NOT being purely based on Y, disproves the absolute assertion;

or ONE CANNOT DO X BECAUSE OF Y; IT HAS TO BE BECAUSE OF Z

Just one case of ‘doing X because of Y’, and/or without Z, disproves the absolute assertion.

The same applies to these previously identified absolute/universal assertions YOU made–and when offered an out, didn’t hedge your language, rather doubled down:

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.

---

***Ergo any singular case of one who has assented without–or before–reason, disproves the assertions. ***

---

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?

Evidence? Link? Source?

NOTE: you may very well have a point here–I’m not necessarily disputing it–but that’s a rather packed assertion–you would need to back that up with just a little more than:

“….you’re absurd! Everything aynone esle but me assets, is absurd! It’s is so, because I declare it is!!!”.

Yes, I can certainly see whose failing by your comments on proof by counter example.

At least you have a sense of humor. (I hope, anyway).

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.

You claim THIS now, after asserting, re-asserting, doubling down and tripling down on your absolute universal assertions. That’s called backpeddling, and/or moving the goal posts.

Please note: There is an ocean of difference between ***"…how things should be" *** versus "it MUST Be, ONE MUST…IT CAN NOT BE OTHERWISE, ANYTHINGE ELSE IS ABSURD…".

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.

Declaring something to be absurd, is NOT an ‘absolute fact’ at all–not by definition, as the very nature of absurdity, is subjective, while teh very nature of ‘FACTS’ is objective.

 

[brb3]

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?

Absolutely !!

A supernatural event, a ‘real presence’ for us @ each receipt of the Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity. We ‘experience’ Christ and the HS within the Cup & Host. We are empowered, we are healed, we are inspired … to ‘read’ the Sacred Scripture, with clear vision … and 2000 years of Saints helping our cause.

Am I wrong ?

 

[Goya]

Eufrosnia;10749104]Part 1 of 2

…

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.

…

No. It takes quite a number of posts for you to wear the other guy down and out. That’s not convincing, or ‘straightening’ anyone out–that’s just proving that you’re more committed to outlasting anyone else on what ever point you stake your claim to.

Sorry sir–I’m just not impressed.

Quality > quantity.

Volume is no substitute for substance, especially when it’s mostly just fluff.

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

I think that the authority part is pretty simple. Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, which unlock for us Heaven, and that is why he and his successors have the authority - because that is exactly how Jesus wanted it to be.

 

[Tomster]

I think that the authority part is pretty simple. Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, which unlock for us Heaven, and that is why he and his successors have the authority - because that is exactly how Jesus wanted it to be.

You are so right Daniel.

 

[Eufrosnia]

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.

Well Protestants aren’t really managing unless you consider allowing all sorts of immoralities and splintering in to 10,000+ denominations as successful management.

As for Scripture, aren’t you already interpreting Timothy and letters to the Corinthians to begin with?

I asked you how you knew your interpretation was correct. To defend it, you are presenting to me another interpretation from a different passage. Do you think that is reasonable?

 

[Eufrosnia]

First, you’re the only person who says it’s absurd.

Second, what you say is absurd, isn’t even what I have said, but your consistent mutilations of what I have said.

Third, just because you declare it to be absurd, doesn’t make it so–just makes it what it always was—YOUR OPINION.

So why don’t you behave like a reasonable person and clearly state your position? Without doing that, you keep writing big bold. That doesn’t help because I can already read the normal font size.

Nonsense. You do not understand simple, basic, elementary logic.

I see. So if I am understanding you properly, you are telling me that a proposition may not be proven false by use of one counter-example? Yes?

If I say people generally like to have fun–you may dispute that with counter examples–but

"…well my grampappy don’t like to have no fun’ &
“…I knew a bubba in high school didn’t like to have him no fun” &
“…and my wife ain’t no fun”–

Does not DISPROVE the general proposition. It may dispute it; perhaps…but it does not DISPROVE IT.

Notwithstanding what your granpappy, your HS buddy and your wife think about fun…the general proposition MAY still stand.

ON the other hand:

ONE MUST DO X. TO ARRIVE AT Y

One need only show ONE CASE of someone arriving at Y, without doing X, and the absoulte assertion is disproven.

or X MUST BE BASED PURELY ON Y

Just one case of X NOT being purely based on Y, disproves the absolute assertion;

or ONE CANNOT DO X BECAUSE OF Y; IT HAS TO BE BECAUSE OF Z

Just one case of ‘doing X because of Y’, and/or without Z, disproves the absolute assertion.

The same applies to these previously identified absolute/universal assertions YOU made–and when offered an out, didn’t hedge your language, rather doubled down:

**

---

***Ergo any singular case of one who has assented without–or before–reason, disproves the assertions. ***

---

Ok now I think I kind of understand you better. Your proposition is

A) People in general feel an attraction to the messages and claims that are TRUE.

This may or may not be true and is frankly irrelevant even if it were true. Why? Because no one can say if they are feeling the attraction as part of the “general population” or as part of the outcast. If anything, you are just encouraging conformity i.e. I must be Christian because that is the right thing to be attracted to as true. Why? Because that is what most in general are attracted to as true

Also, 1 Billion+ Muslims feel attracted to Islam and feel confident that God will never become man. 1 Billion+ Christians believe that God became man. So what exactly do you mean by “General”?

Evidence? Link? Source?

NOTE: you may very well have a point here–I’m not necessarily disputing it–but that’s a rather packed assertion–you would need to back that up with just a little more than:

"….you’re absurd! Everything aynone esle but me assets, is absurd! It’s is so, because I declare it is!!!".

Well, in my defense, I never said the proposition you list above. I only said that what is unreasonable is absurd. In other words, any conclusion one assents to as true that cannot be backed through premises that are probable, intuitive, or empirically verifiable using logical rules of inference, is not worthy of assent.

While Christian doctrine itself cannot be backed in this way using rational arguments, the assent to Christian doctrine can be supported using rational argument as suggested in the OP. It is only that fact that makes Christianity worthy of assent (and others unworthy of assent).

Is this an absolute conclusion? Yes. IS this me saying “anyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I say so”, no.

At least you have a sense of humor. (I hope, anyway).

You claim THIS now, after asserting, re-asserting, doubling down and tripling down on your absolute universal assertions. That’s called backpeddling, and/or moving the goal posts.

Please note: There is an ocean of difference between ***"…how things should be" *** versus "it MUST Be, ONE MUST…IT CAN NOT BE OTHERWISE, ANYTHINGE ELSE IS ABSURD…".

I am claiming how things SHOULD be. So in this context, I do mean to say that anything else is indeed invalid.

When I say that people should not believe a random person for medical advise, I am not stating a non-absolute. I am indeed stating and absolute.

Declaring something to be absurd, is NOT an ‘absolute fact’ at all–not by definition, as the very nature of absurdity, is subjective, while teh very nature of ‘FACTS’ is objective.

Well the technical term is UNREASONABLE or ILLOGICAL. But you don’t seem to think much of the terms. That is why I used the term Absurd.

 

[Goya]

Eufrosnia;10750250]

So why don’t you behave like a reasonable person and clearly state your position? Without doing that, you keep writing big bold. That doesn’t help because I can already read the normal font size.

A brief synthesis (followed by a summary) of what I claimed, and which you declared to be absurd:

Sure there is great need for reason–but make no mistake–for Christianity to have exploded the way that it did, and to sustain as it has…was not a matter of ‘reason’, or dry intellectual revelation. It was indeed lead by emotion. Christ’s message is first and foremost, a revelation of and to, the Heart.

Chirst’s message(s) of Faith, Hope and Charity, of Love and Forgiveness, and of Life Eternal…resonate uinverally–they speak to Man’s heart, first.

Reason comes later.

We seek to reason, to figure out Christ’s message; we seek to reason, to understand it; we seek to reason, to reconcile the vileness of our worldly existence, with the beauty of His message…

…but it is indeed the beauty of the message, that calls us to reason–to in order to BELIEVE.

So, my posotion, re-stated:

Man–generally speaking–is attracted to the beauty of Christ’s message (note: not Jesus’s physical beauty, according to one of your many mutilations)–His message of Faith, Hope and Charity, of Love and Forgiveness, and of Life Eternal, which resonate uinversally (perhaps better to go with intrinsically, in light of my own admonitions against universal assertions)–Christ’s message speaks to Man’s heart–this atttraction in turn, prompts Man to reason–in hopes of understanding it–in further hopes of truly believing it (i.e.–assenting).

Further on down, I asserted that*** '‘assent’ may* come before or after applying reason–and further, that assent may be achieved without even employing reason at all.**

That’s not to say that assent should be granted freely without employing reason; that is not to say that doing so is preferble or admirable; just saying that it happens. In fact, regularly–and therefore can happen.

That’s pretty much all I was saying since I chimed in on your exchange with Smegnelof.

You might find it ill advised for one to assent without reason; you may even think it absurd–or illogicial, or unreasonable…

But that does not make the proposition that it can happen and does happen–absurd, illogical, or unreasonable.

 

[Eufrosnia]

So, my posotion, re-stated:

Man–generally speaking–is attracted to the beauty of Christ’s message (note: not Jesus’s physical beauty, according to one of your many mutilations)–His message of Faith, Hope and Charity, of Love and Forgiveness, and of Life Eternal, which resonate uinversally (perhaps better to go with intrinsically, in light of my own admonitions against universal assertions)–Christ’s message speaks to Man’s heart–this atttraction in turn, prompts Man to reason–in hopes of understanding it–in further hopes of truly believing it (i.e.–assenting).

Further on down, I asserted that*** '‘assent’ may*** come before or after applying reason–and further, that assent may be achieved without even employing reason at all.

That’s not to say that assent should be granted freely without employing reason; that is not to say that doing so is preferble or admirable; just saying that it happens. In fact, regularly–and therefore can happen.

That’s pretty much all I was saying since I chimed in on your exchange with Smegnelof.

You might find it ill advised for one to assent without reason; you may even think it absurd–or illogicial, or unreasonable…

But that does not make the proposition that it can happen and does happen–absurd, illogical, or unreasonable.

Well if your point is that “these sort of things happen”, then honestly there is nothing much to debate about. People assent because it makes them rich, people assent because it gives them status and we can talk about a lot more of this sort. Protestants assent because they have a very strong feeling that their faith is true (which they attribute to the Holy Spirit) and so forth. We obviously do not say that is how it should be.

So this thread was about how things should be.

Usually the reason for people to assent without reason is because they hold on to Fideism i.e. that Reason cannot lead them the true faith. That is a position condemned by the Church. So I am talking about how things should be and you decided for some reason to talk about how things are in the world. Naturally, I assumed that you were speaking of that as how it should be as well (in the context of the thread).

As for the physical beauty of Christ comment, that was made because you insisted that Apostles started to follow Jesus because of the beauty of the message he preached. But since there is no indication of Jesus preaching before he recruited the first Apostles, we would have to attribute the reason for them perhaps seeing some physical beauty. It was partly meant as a joke but also to convey the fact that what you say does not have evidence. Is it possible that Jesus preached before recruiting? Yes. But since we don’t have any indication or evidence of it, we cannot say that is why the Apostles assented.

We can be more sure that they assented because of the authority of John the Baptist (proven possible from his miracles) and therefore assented based on John’s testimony, which is a reasonable thing to do.

 

[brb3]

Well Protestants aren’t really managing unless you consider allowing all sorts of immoralities and splintering in to 10,000+ denominations as successful management.

As for Scripture, aren’t you already interpreting Timothy and letters to the Corinthians to begin with?

I asked you how you knew your interpretation was correct. To defend it, you are presenting to me another interpretation from a different passage. Do you think that is reasonable?

They lack Peter’s successor & Bishops to guide them … so they use Scripture as their Gold Standard. If the CC were ‘lily pure’, w/o scandal,… perhaps they would listen to her and accept her claims to Authority. As you well know, fractured ties are hard to recover from. Take those fractures/disputes of the RCC and Eastern Church … as Example A.

 

[brb3]

Well the technical term is UNREASONABLE or ILLOGICAL.

There u go … breaking your own Rules [CAF rules] … capping words, ‘shouting’ unnecessarily… we can read small print too

Eufros …

u started out strong my man !! But, can you persevere withering rebutals ?

Protestants are tough ‘street’ fighters ! Our ‘turncoat’ priest Martin Luther … taught them well. We have he to blame for much misery …:sad_yes:

 

[brb3]

As for the physical beauty … since there is no indication of Jesus preaching before he recruited the first Apostles, we would have to attribute the reason for them perhaps seeing some physical beauty. It was partly meant as a joke but also to convey the fact that what you say does not have evidence. Is it possible that Jesus preached before recruiting? Yes. But since we don’t have any indication or evidence of it, we cannot say that is why the Apostles assented.

We can be more sure that they assented because of the authority of John the Baptist (proven possible from his miracles) and therefore assented based on John’s testimony, which is a reasonable thing to do.

It’s doubtful Jesus wished to possess physical beauty — it would distract from his ‘spiritual’ message. No doubt he possessed / commanded supreme ‘authority’ when he spoke/taught… scripture & historical documents confirm this fact.

His miracles & message were delivered mistake free, and with perfect pitch !
He convinced the Baptizer John ! And all 12 followed him when he called. Only a God-man could do this with perfection.

And, Christ convinces us today via HS… when we read scripture. The HS has the Authority. All scripture is inspired by HS, all scripture correctly interpreted … is done so with HS assistance.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It’s doubtful Jesus wished to possess physical beauty — it would distract from his ‘spiritual’ message. No doubt he possessed / commanded supreme ‘authority’ when he spoke/taught… scripture & historical documents confirm this fact.

His miracles & message were delivered mistake free, and with perfect pitch !
He convinced the Baptizer John ! And all 12 followed him when he called. Only a God-man could do this with perfection.

And, Christ convinces us today via HS… when we read scripture. The HS has the Authority. All scripture is inspired by HS, all scripture correctly interpreted … is done so with HS assistance.

Ok wait, we are going in circles now. Let me try and clarify my question to you.
**
Eufrosnia:** How do you know you can interpret Scripture correctly?
You: Because of this passage X from Timothy, etc. says that I have guidance by the HS to do so
Eufrosnia: But that itself is an interpretation by you of passage X (i.e. Scripture), is it not? So unless you knew beforehand that you have guidance, you can’t be sure that you are interpreting X itself correctly in the first place, yes? So the idea that “Holy Spirit guides me” itself could be an error. (The Catholic Church actually teaches that to interpret these passages as implying guidance of this magnitude by HS for every individual is indeed an error).

So that is my question to you.

 

[Eufrosnia]

They lack Peter’s successor & Bishops to guide them … so they use Scripture as their Gold Standard. If the CC were ‘lily pure’, w/o scandal,… perhaps they would listen to her and accept her claims to Authority. As you well know, fractured ties are hard to recover from. Take those fractures/disputes of the RCC and Eastern Church … as Example A.

There u go … breaking your own Rules [CAF rules] … capping words, ‘shouting’ unnecessarily… we can read small print too

Eufros …

u started out strong my man !! But, can you persevere withering rebutals ?

Protestants are tough ‘street’ fighters ! Our ‘turncoat’ priest Martin Luther … taught them well. We have he to blame for much misery …:sad_yes:

Trust me, there is a lot to blame Martin Luther for

Anyway, in my defense regarding use of caps, I complained about big fonts. I do not recall complaining about caps. Caps are usually used for emphasis by me or to highlight keywords. But these are really not worth discussing at length anyway.

The big issue here is the question I asked above.

To repeat

Eufrosnia: How do you know you can interpret Scripture correctly?
You: Because of this passage X from Timothy, etc. says that I have guidance by the HS to do so
Eufrosnia: But that itself is an interpretation by you of passage X (i.e. Scripture), is it not? So unless you knew beforehand that you have guidance, you can’t be sure that you are interpreting X itself correctly in the first place, yes? So the idea that “Holy Spirit guides me” itself could be an error. (The Catholic Church actually teaches that to interpret these passages as implying guidance of this magnitude by HS for every individual is indeed an error).

Since the Catholic Church does not teach it, how did you come to know such a truth that “HS will guide you to interpret Scripture correctly” before interpreting Scripture?

So I hope you will do Martin proud and give a good answer to the above simple question (Martin must have missed it too because I have not found any answer to that question in his works).

 

[brb3]

Since the Catholic Church does not teach it, how did you come to know such a truth that “HS will guide you to interpret Scripture correctly” before interpreting Scripture?

Becuz … I used my God given ‘reasoning’ to do what Paul taught Timothy to do, …which followed my ‘faith’

 

[Eufrosnia]

Becuz … I used my God given ‘reasoning’ to do what Paul taught Timothy to do, …which followed my ‘faith’

Well that again goes in a circle though. You know (or think you know) what Paul said to Timothy to mean “use God given reason will tell you about the HS”, yes? But that too is interpretation. So you still have not solved the problem.

Also, can you present an argument through reason to think that there exists the Holy Spirit, as the third person of the Trinity and that he guides every individual to the truth? Because so far you have only quotes Scripture which requires us to interpret what it says. Since the matter here is regarding the accuracy of interpretation itself, I would like to see an actual argument from reason.

Do you have one?

 

[De_Montfort]

It’s doubtful Jesus wished to possess physical beauty — it would distract from his ‘spiritual’ message. No doubt he possessed / commanded supreme ‘authority’ when he spoke/taught… scripture & historical documents confirm this fact.

His miracles & message were delivered mistake free, and with perfect pitch !
He convinced the Baptizer John ! And all 12 followed him when he called. Only a God-man could do this with perfection.

And, Christ convinces us today via HS… when we read scripture. The HS has the Authority. All scripture is inspired by HS, all scripture correctly interpreted … is done so with HS assistance.

Can you explain this Scripture using your reasoning, in Act 8:27-31

27
Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28
and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.

29
The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”

30
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

31
He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

If the Holy Spirit guides everyone why does he ask for and acknowledge that he needs to be guided?

Does this Scripture show that the Holy Spirit works through the authority of the Church to teach? I would say yes. Notice the Spirit prompted Phillip, and it was the Spirit through Philip that taught the man. So it is through authority that we are taught, not personal interpretation.

 

[Goya]

Can you explain this Scripture using your reasoning, in Act 8:27-31

If the Holy Spirit guides everyone why does he ask for and acknowledge that he needs to be guided?

Does this Scripture show that the Holy Spirit works through the authority of the Church to teach? I would say yes. Notice the Spirit prompted Phillip, and it was the Spirit through Philip that taught the man. So it is through authority that we are taught, not personal interpretation.

Good stuff there DeMontfort!

 

[brb3]

Can you explain this Scripture using your reasoning, in Act 8:27-31

If the Holy Spirit guides everyone why does he ask for and acknowledge that he needs to be guided?

Does this Scripture show that the Holy Spirit works through the authority of the Church to teach? I would say yes. Notice the Spirit prompted Phillip, and it was the Spirit through Philip that taught the man. So it is through authority that we are taught, not personal interpretation.

De Mont …

Becuz … as we know [by experience], the HS does not reveal all to us on Day 1 ! Revelation of scripture is progressive … as we need to know, as we can ‘handle the truth’.

When we are Baptized, we get some revelation …appropriate to our situation. Then at our Confirmations, we get additional ‘illumination’ via HS … that really gives us a massive awakening, that really allows us to start making heads/tails out of scripture — able to see the ‘big picture’ !

The Eunuch was at first drawing of HS … not yet able to put it all together. He needed more help, Phillip [advanced in illumination of HS, by Christ], — able to teach him.

But, again … faith preceeds illumination/confirmation in HS — the Baptism of Fire !! This is the when we really make ‘warp-speed’ gains, so great we know they were ‘graced’ to us … beyond our abilities to do on our own, ‘miraculous, supernatural revelations’. That is when we know it is pure grace of God to us … not of our own reasoning. Always helping us to progress, … onwards and upwards to eventual ‘theosis’… and with some help from the BVM and ALL the Saints too

Am I wrong ?

 

[Eufrosnia]

De Mont …

Becuz … as we know [by experience], the HS does not reveal all to us on Day 1 ! Revelation of scripture is progressive … as we need to know, as we can ‘handle the truth’.

When we are Baptized, we get some revelation …appropriate to our situation. Then at our Confirmations, we get additional ‘illumination’ via HS … that really gives us a massive awakening, that really allows us to start making heads/tails out of scripture — able to see the ‘big picture’ !

The Eunuch was at first drawing of HS … not yet able to put it all together. He needed more help, Phillip [advanced in illumination of HS, by Christ], — able to teach him.

But, again … faith preceeds illumination/confirmation in HS — the Baptism of Fire !! This is the when we really make ‘warp-speed’ gains, so great we know they were ‘graced’ to us … beyond our abilities to do on our own, ‘miraculous, supernatural revelations’. That is when we know it is pure grace of God to us … not of our own reasoning. Always helping us to progress, … onwards and upwards to eventual ‘theosis’… and with some help from the BVM and ALL the Saints too

Am I wrong ?

Hey, I am still waiting for a reply to my question to you… I think you might have missed it

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10753346&postcount=215

I think it is wonderful that you write a lot of interpretation of Scripture in these threads but we need to know what reason you have to think your interpretations (including your interpretation of Scripture that “HS guides every individual to the true interpretation”) are correct. Otherwise as nice as it is, you might be in error and leading others to error, yes? That will not please Jesus and would be injustice to all of us.

So do you have a reason?