Faith and Reason

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
Given that
‘A’ is a true teaching of the Church
and
‘B’ is a true teaching of the Church
and that
‘C’ necessarily follows from ‘A’ and ‘B’

is C necessarily true?
is C necessarily a teaching of the Church?

If the Magisterium teaches A and B, but is silent about C
and if C necessarily follows from A and B,
is C a teaching of the Church?

Ron
 
The Church may not agree that C necessarily follows from A and B.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Given that
‘A’ is a true teaching of the Church
and
‘B’ is a true teaching of the Church
and that
‘C’ necessarily follows from ‘A’ and ‘B’

is C necessarily true?
is C necessarily a teaching of the Church?

If the Magisterium teaches A and B, but is silent about C
and if C necessarily follows from A and B,
is C a teaching of the Church?

Ron
Click to expand...
Ron some things revealed through divine revelation can not linked in logical orders by man, so your “C” is not defined as displayed.
 
Okay: I am silly enough to answer this one.
Ron_Conte said:
Given that
‘A’ is a true teaching of the Church
and
‘B’ is a true teaching of the Church
and that
‘C’ necessarily follows from ‘A’ and ‘B’

is C necessarily true?
Click to expand...
Assuming that “true teaching of the Church” means “something which the Church teaches and which is true” (rather than “something which the Church does indeed teach”*]), then yes: by logical consequence, C must be true if it does necessarily follow from true propositions A and B.
is C necessarily a teaching of the Church?
Click to expand...
No; it might never have been expressed, and so it might not be a ‘teaching’, i.e., an expression of doctrine.
If the Magisterium teaches A and B, but is silent about C
and if C necessarily follows from A and B,
is C a teaching of the Church?
Click to expand...
This is, as you know, the same question, and so the same answers apply.

*] Not being Catholic, I feel that it is prudent to note the lemma there.
 
There is no example; I don’t have an A or a B or a C to give to you.

What I’m asking is basically the role of reason in faith.
If the Church says explicitly that A and B are teachings,
and if reason says that C necessarily follows from A and B,
should be believe C? Is it Church teaching implicitly?

Has every Church teaching been written down, or are there
Church teachings that are implicit, or that are lived by not written?

Yes, some of the things of faith are beyond reason, but do we
abandon or ignore reason?

So, I think that:

some Church teachings are implicit
some Church teachings have not been written down

you can’t really live the faith merely by believing particular doctrines and then practicing them, apart from reason, for reason allows you to apply abstract ideas to practical circumstances.

if reason concludes, based on and without contradiction to, the teachings of the Faith, that C necessarily follows from various teachings, then we should consider C to be an implied or implicit teaching of the Church and we should live by A, B, and C.

What do you all think?

Ron
 
Not all teaching is defined formally. The church should ‘live’ the word of God, not to merely define it. If “definition” is what you refering as “teaching” such as CCC, then I would say that not all teaching is formally difined.

If A and B are the teachings, and if C is known to consistently follow A and B, then by reason , C is the teaching as well. However any product of reasoning shall be tested time and time again.

It is important to remember that God choose men, not theoretical methodologies neither definitons : He chose to become a man in Jesus. Thus Jesus is God’s ONLY methodology and definition and reason. Not methodologies as in textbooks neither definitions as on paper, but a MAN who believe in God’s will.

Although God’s Will holds the primacy over OUR reasonings, it is believed that His Will ALWAYS follows HIS Most Righteous Reason : Jesus Christ, His own Word, and His Promise. Thus although sometimes His Will is so mysterious for us (outside of our capability to reason), it is firmly believed that “God’s Will is also His Righteous Reason as well”. Now in this way of thinking, we can reason our faith in Him (and His Will) based on the Reason He has revealed to us : Jesus Christ.

Knowing that our reasoning capability is limited, it does not mean that we cannot reason God at all. We can reason God based on His Word and our understanding that God is God of ORDER, and not God of disorder. He has His Reason (His Word), and His Reason is ALWAYS righteous. This righteous reason of God is the absolute truth we seek. Reciprocally the absolute Truth is exactly His Reasoning and also His Will, His own Word and His Promise and the Fulfillment of that Promise : His SELF.

In becoming a man in Jesus Christ, God has given us “a way” to know Him so that we will not be “deceived” by the other false gods. False gods are false reasons. They enter our minds and our souls by making us believe in what is false (a lie).

God of order will not hinder us from knowing Him by becoming “an outrageously unpredictably-out-of-order Being”. Instead He reveal to us His Word who is His Reason who is His Promise who is the Fulfillment of His Promise who is Jesus Christ. In this orderly manner, God teach us His wisdom in many area of our life in our personal relationship with Him. We can have a personal relationship with God because He is a person, not mere “definitions of doctrines” on a piece of paper, nor an impersonal- scientific-full-of-coincidence-universe. God is a personal being, and He Wills His purpose to fulfill His Promise (His Word) in order that He is The Truth.

God’s definition is found in the man Jesus, and consequently in those who believe Him.
 
Ron,

If the Church doesn’t teach something, then it isn’t a teaching of the Church. I think that sort of flows from the definitions.

If the Church teaches “A” and “B”, and “C” necessarily flows from “A” and “B”, then “C” is necessarily true; it just isn’t a teaching of the Church. (The Church does not teach everything that is true; for example, “2+2=4” is not a teaching of the Church.) If the Church teaches “A” and “B”, then “A” and “B” are necessarily true; the Church does not teach falsehood.

As some other respondents have noted, it can be VERY difficult to establish that “C” flows necessarily from “A” and “B”.
  • Liberian
 
A brief point of logic. While I agree with most of what was said above, there is one small point that I didn’t see mentioned (sorry if I missed it).

If C follows from A and B, one must assume a correct understanding of A and B. It is possible that C might be derived from A and B under one interpretation but not another.

The original argument would have to assume that A and B are clearly understood and understood in a way the Church would understand them relative to C. If the Church hasn’t fully defined A or B, then it might not be correct to assume C true or what the Church would teach (until or unless the Church taught it). A proper definition of terms is required as the first act of the intellect, before the second act of composition and division can occur, and both of these are required for the third act, reasoning, to be cogent.

Sorry for the sermon.

David
 
Ron_Conte said:
What I’m asking is basically the role of reason in faith.
If the Church says explicitly that A and B are teachings,
and if reason says that C necessarily follows from A and B,
should be believe C? Is it Church teaching implicitly?
Click to expand...
If you believe in ‘an infallible Church which teaches the fullness of the Truth’, the answer has to be “Yes”, because that would make A true and B true and C true, and the teaching would not be full if it did not include C.
 
David,

No apologies necessary. You are right; I was assuming a full definition and correct understanding of A and B.
  • Liberian
 
Ron_Conte said:
There is no example; I don’t have an A or a B or a C to give to you.

What I’m asking is basically the role of reason in faith.
If the Church says explicitly that A and B are teachings,
and if reason says that C necessarily follows from A and B,
should be believe C? Is it Church teaching implicitly?
Click to expand...
Something that occurred to me when I was offline: Catholic teaching has progressively developed over the years. Something which is practised in one century is taught as doctrine in another, having become part of the Tradition of the Church in the intervening space.

I would suggest that this might be the very situation which you describe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top