Bad Teaching ... continued

[Ender]

I don’t know why the other thread was closed but Michael_N asked a question I wanted to address.

I think this is the most interesting thing in your post, but I don’t understand what you mean by it. I know that the Internet makes it pretty easy to find out what the Catholic Church teaches about X. That part is easy to do. Why do you say that “the search for what the Church teaches differs in kind from a search to discover ‘truth’”?

As you said, it is easy to know what the Church teaches. It is impossible, however, to know (moral) truth since all that we believe is based on assumptions that cannot be proven. If I assume the Church is who she claims to be then the base for all that I believe is fixed and my search for the truth to any moral question is fundamentally different from that of a person who’s moral values are based solely on his own intellect.

If one believes on principle that everything the Church teaches is true, then if the Church teaches anything about a subject, learning what it teaches is the way to discover truth. This is logical if you start with the belief that what the Church teaches is true. What I meant was that this attribute makes me want to believe in Catholicism, because just as in that quote, we all need to recognize an undoubtable truth or else we are lost wanderers. If you believe the Church, the Church is a very good source of undeniable truths, due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all the teaching.

But I don’t quite believe that yet, necessarily. And the fact that neither do most Catholics isn’t helping me to. I’m not saying it proves anything, just that it doesn’t provide a very good witness to the idea.

The undoubted fact that many Catholics reject some of the tenets of Catholicism says nothing about the truth of Catholicism - but perhaps a great deal about how those truths are communicated. I think you may be stuck in the position of trying to understand so that you can believe when you need to believe in order to understand. (Augustine)

Ender

 

[simspt]

I’m not sure I would try to do so. I think the question is whether the developed dogma is compelling or not. I certainly find it so–I think that Trinitarian Christianity is a rich narrative that makes sense of the world and is supported by various kinds of evidence (historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, the transformation wrought in people’s lives and in society, the artistic and intellectual glories of the tradition, etc.). None of them are wholly conclusive on their own, but cumulatively I think there are very good reasons to believe it. But in the end it takes faith. The main point is that the “humanness” of the process does not discredit it. If the skeptic said that it did, I’d ask for an argument showing this. In fact I’ve had this argument with fellow Christians! I guess, as a church historian, I expect a messy process and I don’t find the politics and so on to be a serious challenge to my faith, as long as the ultimate result seems compelling. Athanasius’s doctrine of the Incarnation is powerful and beautiful, even if Athanasius was a bit of a jerk (not saying he was, but some would see him that way). St. Cyril’s doctrine of the hypostatic union–same thing.

Edwin

Thanks for your thoughts. I feel pretty much the same way but have to admit at first discovery after starting to study more about the history of the church the “humanness” of it was an eye opener for me.