G. K. Chesterton’s Defense of Dogma

[Non_Serviam]

Dogma is associated with the teaching of an individual or organization and is not necessarily regarded as infallible. If you reject all authorities except yourself you obviously regard yourself as the highest authority.

That is true and it is also true of a person who decides to submit to no authority - a decision which presupposes greater confidence in one’s own judgment than anyone else’s. It is indeed the teaching of the Church that our ultimate authority is our own conscience but the difference is that a Catholic takes the authority of the Church into account whereas you rely entirely on your own judgment…

In the Catholic Church, the claim is made that Catholic dogma is infallible, that’s one of the reasons given by many Catholics for making it the “highest authority”.

I, otoh, am free to choose from all sources of information in determining the meaning or veracity of something. While you are limited to the dogmatic definition of a verse by the church, I am able to look at that definition, the evidence for it, as well as the expertise of non-catholic scholars in languages, history, in order to determine if that definition is correct. I can look at the consensus of experts in areas where I lack personal expertise.

Take, for example, the issue of transubstantiation. There is a huge amount of biblical and historical evidence that from the earliest times Christians have believed in the Real Presence. Catholics in a fit of pique at the Reformers chose to define the Real Presence using Aristotelian metaphysics at Trent.

Every advance in understanding the nature of matter that comes to us from physics and chemistry demonstrates that Aristotle, for all his good points, was mistaken about the nature of matter. Likewise, if we look at many of the discussions of the Scholastics on the nature of substance and accidents, we see that they were mistaken as well. In an attempt to stay ahead of the curve, the Church keeps revising its explanation of accidents to make it less vulnerable to being disproved by science.

Were it not for the fact that the church had used Aristote’s explanation as the basis for the unchangeable dogma, it could simply say “oops, Aristotle goofed, and so did we” but that option isn’t available because of the manner in which the church has defined its authority. So, with each new discovery, transubstantiation becomes harder to defend, while a simple affirmation of the Real Presence, as believed by the early church, is not subject to such theological gymnastics.

Learning from this mistake, it has since attempted to make all proclaimed dogma unverifiable so that no challenge can be made to it.

Given the choice between a “higher authority” that cannot admit its mistakes and reviewing the evidence for beliefs and attempting to find expert consensus therein, even if it means revising some previously held beliefs, I’ll take the latter as it sounds more like being “led into all truth” rather than claiming to have it already.

 

[Leela]

You’re not really thinking clearly about it. If someone was not christian why on earth would they care about dogma or bother thinking about entering the circle of something they don’t believe in. Only christians would bother thinking or worrying about christian dogmas.

It sounds like you are uninterested in convincing anyone that your beliefs are true. That is quite fine by me.

About non-Catholic christians, the bare fact remains that Christ was recorded by His Apostles as saying that He had built His church. That was in 33 AD. Unfortunately no protestant movements existed until about 1,500 years later, long after Christ had established His Church.
So Christs church existed for 1,500 years up to the reformation and it was, from all the historical still-existing documents, the Catholic Church.

That’s your reading of the history but not the Protestant or Evangelical reading. Protestants believe that they are carrying on the true Church and that the Catholic Church lost its way. Evangelicals see a broad Christian tradition (wherein they have the one true interpretation on the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible) where the Church refers to he Body of Christ rather than a specific organization, i.e., all Christians.

Going back to Christs recorded words to His disciples:
I will build My church…
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days*, even to the consummation of the world.

• that is, He is with His church from 33ad continuously to 1500ad and onwards to the consummation of the world.

Again, you are assuming that the Church referred to in the scriptures is the Roman Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church says so. It is a circular argumument.

Honestly, what do you think Jesus would have thought of the Vatican? NonCatholic Christians find it easy to dismiss the notion that the Body of Christ (The Christian people, i.e., The Church) is equivalent to the Vatican hierarchy and its shiny collection plates which hands down dogmas by imagining how the Vatican would have looked to the Apostles and Jesus two thousand years ago. To most Christians, the Church from 33CE onward has always been and still is the community of followers of Christ rather than any particular organizational hierarchy. Evangelicals (as opposed to Protestant nonCatholics) see Christianity as having always been in its most faithful form a grassroots movement–a tradition that goes back to the ancient house churches and which has been an undercurrent throughout history since then in spite of the RCC. It is not at all viewed as arriving via the Roman Catholic Church as any top down organization but as having survived through the Holy Spirit and in spite of the RCC.

 

[Thing]

It sounds like you are uninterested in convincing anyone that your beliefs are true. That is quite fine by me.

That’s your reading of the history but not the Protestant or Evangelical reading. Protestants believe that they are carrying on the true Church and that the Catholic Church lost its way. Evangelicals see a broad Christian tradition (wherein they have the one true interpretation on the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible) where the Church refers to he Body of Christ rather than a specific organization, i.e., all Christians.

Again, you are assuming that the Church referred to in the scriptures is the Roman Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church says so. It is a circular argumument.

Honestly, what do you think Jesus would have thought of the Vatican? NonCatholic Christians find it easy to dismiss the notion that the Body of Christ (The Christian people, i.e., The Church) is equivalent to the Vatican hierarchy and its shiny collection plates which hands down dogmas by imagining how the Vatican would have looked to the Apostles and Jesus two thousand years ago. To most Christians, the Church from 33CE onward has always been and still is the community of followers of Christ rather than any particular organizational hierarchy. Evangelicals (as opposed to Protestant nonCatholics) see Christianity as having always been in its most faithful form a grassroots movement–a tradition that goes back to the ancient house churches and which has been an undercurrent throughout history since then in spite of the RCC. It is not at all viewed as arriving via the Roman Catholic Church as any top down organization but as having survived through the Holy Spirit and in spite of the RCC.

Again, I don’t understand why someone who does not believe in any of this would be even remotely interested in it.
The Catholic Church existed in the 1st and 2nd centuries. If as Christ said, ‘I am with you always’ is true, then that is sufficient, He is with the church always. Either the church never was the church and Christ never remained with it through its history and He lied to the Apostles or it is the church Christ established on the Apostles and He remained with it for all time.

 

[antunesaa]

There is no doubt here that the Church insists as a dogma that the Church has authority to insist on dogma. The problem for me is that I see no point of entry into this circle of logic. There is no way to try to get agreement with those outside of this circle.

There is an experiment I can propose to you. If you can, try to conditionally convert to orthodox Catholicism during a period of time. Say - 6 months. During that period you should try as much as you can to learn the dogma (there’s a useful booklet called I think the Compendium of the Catholic Catechism; “Orthodoxy” by Chesterton is also nice), to think like a Catholic, to behave like a Catholic; you should even try to open your mind to the possibility of the divine. Act like you’re preparing for Baptism. It is both hard and easy. It’s hard because you’re an atheist and you’re straining your deeply held convictions. But it is easy because most of your actions would be the same, while in some instances you would behave a bit differently. In the end of the experiment you might hopefully know whether Catholicism has a chance of being true or not.

Now, I have in my early twenties (I’m 40 now) done this experiment, albeit involuntarily. I became for a couple of years a practical atheist. I have always been an overly rational guy, and at some point I concluded that most likely there was no God. And while I can’t say that the experience was totally negative, the fact is that things just didn’t feel right. Slowly but surely I became a Catholic again and never looked back. Now, this is just my experience but I can at least fully understand the arguments from the other side.

 

[Abu]

Leela
There is no doubt here that the Church insists as a dogma that the Church has authority to insist on dogma. The problem for me is that I see no point of entry into this circle of logic. There is no way to try to get agreement with those outside of this circle.
….to the extent that the Church governs at all, it does so only on the authority of the consent of the governed.

This misconception explains the predicament. Who gave Her this authority to proclaim dogmas?
Jesus of Nazareth. He didn’t write any books, but he founded His Church on Peter the Rock – the history is very clear. Further all have God-given free-will to assent to Her teaching and way of life, but Christ did not constitute Her on anyone’s consent – She teaches by His divine right.

Leela
Other religions have analogous bootstrapping methods. For example, the Koran says that Muhammed (who is said to have written the Koran) is the last prophet who had the final say on God’s word. Islam, like Catholicism and pretty much every religion, also claims to be the one true religion that can tell us about God’s will.

Jesus of Nazareth is the only person who seriously claimed to be God and proved it by His resurrection. Neither Buddha, nor Confucius, nor Mohammed claimed to be God. Further only the Catholic Church declares that the existence of God can be known from reason alone, and only She enabled the development of science based on discoverable laws – the theology and philosophy of the Catholic Church motivated and enabled the flowering of science.

Leela
Protestants believe that they are carrying on the true Church and that the Catholic Church lost its way. Evangelicals see a broad Christian tradition (wherein they have the one true interpretation on the authority of a literal interpretation of the Bible)
Again, you are assuming that the Church referred to in the scriptures is the Roman Catholic Church. Only the Catholic Church says so. It is a circular argumument.

We only know which books belong to the Bible through the authoritative decision of Christ’s Church in the fourth century. Anyone is able to have a Bible today, as I have, because the Catholic Church collected the writings and made an infallible declaration on the canon of the Scriptures as to which books are the inspired Word of God. Most non-Catholic Bibles are missing seven books and thus many also miss out on vital truths as they follow Luther’s error of “Scripture Only” – the revolt that started 1600 years after Jesus of Nazareth founded His Church!

 

[Abu]

A great Saint who understood the connection between faith, reason and science

ALBERT THE GREAT: NO CONTRAST BETWEEN FAITH AND SCIENCE
VATICAN CITY, 24 MAR 2010 (VIS) - In today’s general audience, celebrated in St. Peter’s Square, the Pope turned his attention to St. Albert the Great, whom he described as “one of the greatest masters of scholastic theology”.
[212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/c0_en.htm]](http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/c0_en.htm])

Excerpts:
The German saint died in Cologne in the year 1280, and was canonised and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XI in 1931, “undoubtedly an appropriate recognition for this great man of God” who was also “an outstanding scholar, not only of the truth of faith but in many other fields of knowledge”. For this reason too, “Pope Pius XII named him as patron of the natural sciences, also giving him the title of ‘Doctor universalis’ because of the vastness of his interests and knowledge”.
“Above all, St. Albert shows that there is no opposition between faith and science. … He reminds us that there is friendship between science and faith, and that scientists can, through their vocation to study nature, follow an authentic and absorbing path of sanctity”, said the Holy Father.
“St. Albert the Great opened the door to the complete acceptance of the thought of Aristotle into the philosophy and theology of the Middle Ages, an acceptance that was later definitively elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas. This acceptance of what we may call pagan or pre-Christian philosophy was an authentic cultural revolution for the time. Yet many Christian thinkers feared Aristotle’s philosophy”, especially as it had been interpreted in such a was as to appear "entire irreconcilable with Christian faith. Thus a dilemma arose: are faith and reason in contrast with one another or not?
“Here lies one of the great merits of St. Albert: he rigorously studied the works of Aristotle, convinced that anything that is truly reasonable is compatible with faith as revealed in Sacred Scripture”, the Pope added.

 

[Leela]

This misconception explains the predicament. Who gave Her this authority to proclaim dogmas?
Jesus of Nazareth. He didn’t write any books, but he founded His Church on Peter the Rock – the history is very clear. Further all have God-given free-will to assent to Her teaching and way of life, but Christ did not constitute Her on anyone’s consent – She teaches by His divine right.

That’s not quite it. The question is, Who says that Christ gave the Church authority to proclaim dogma? The Church says so. No one else says so but the Church. It is a circular argument. The Church says it has authority because the Church says it has authority.

Jesus of Nazareth is the only person who seriously claimed to be God and proved it by His resurrection. Neither Buddha, nor Confucius, nor Mohammed claimed to be God. Further only the Catholic Church declares that the existence of God can be known from reason alone, and only She enabled the development of science based on discoverable laws – the theology and philosophy of the Catholic Church motivated and enabled the flowering of science.

Every religion can claim to be the only religion that does X. Every religion can claim to be the one true religion because it is the religion itself that claims the authority to say what the criteria ought to be for deciding which one is the one true religion.

You don’t think Muslims make these sorts of arguments?

 

[Leela]

Again, I don’t understand why someone who does not believe in any of this would be even remotely interested in it.
The Catholic Church existed in the 1st and 2nd centuries. If as Christ said, ‘I am with you always’ is true, then that is sufficient, He is with the church always. Either the church never was the church and Christ never remained with it through its history and He lied to the Apostles or it is the church Christ established on the Apostles and He remained with it for all time.

You are missing the argument that nonCatholics make. The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy was never what was meant by The Church. The Church is the body of Christ. It is the community of followers of Jesus wherever they may be found. It is not the Church that has maintained the scriptures but the Holy Spirit working through specific people rather than a particular organization. Some of these people may have been part of an organization called the RCC, but that does not make the RCC equivalent to the Church to nonCatholics.

 

[Thing]

You are missing the argument that nonCatholics make. The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy was never what was meant by The Church. The Church is the body of Christ. It is the community of followers of Jesus wherever they may be found. It is not the Church that has maintained the scriptures but the Holy Spirit working through specific people rather than a particular organization. Some of these people may have been part of an organization called the RCC, but that does not make the RCC equivalent to the Church to nonCatholics.

The church was originally the Apostles. And from the Apostles day to the 1500’s the church was the Catholic Church. The Church Christ remained with, presumably to the consummation of the world, as there was no other ‘church’ than that.
Non-Catholic christians, which you call the church, today do not believe what the church, the people, the body of Christ, believed before the reformation. So their beliefs changed at that point.

 

[Abu]

Leela
Who says that Christ gave the Church authority to proclaim dogma? The Church says so. No one else says so but the Church. It is a circular argument.
The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy was never what was meant by The Church.
It is not the Church that has maintained the scriptures but the Holy Spirit working through specific people rather than a particular organization

Leela claims that she knows better than Christ what is meant by His Church – wow!

So who is the Catholic Church? Christ, the pope, the bishops and priests and the laity. How do we know?
Jesus of Nazareth built His Church on Peter the Rock, giving him primacy and infallibility. As Leela feels that it is not His Church that “maintains” (how quaint) the Scriptures she is blissfully unaware of the fact that the same Apostles and disciples commissioned by Christ gave us the NT. It was Jesus Himself who said to His other seventy disciples: “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16). Dogma consists of Christ’s truths infallibly proclaimed by His Church.

Those who don’t know their history need to. The authorisation, coming from Christ’s Vicar and His Church, didn’t fall out of thin air, but from Christ’s mandate to teach all that He had commanded.

Since the facts prove the certification and authorisation of the Sacred Scriptures by Christ’s Catholic Church (O.T & NT) from His Vicar as the canon of the Scriptures for use as the inspired Word of God, all attempts to evade these truths merely show not only the false god of private interpretation but privation and deprivation for those so victimised.

Some are unaware that Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).
As you don’t have the Tradition of the Fathers and Doctors of Christ’s Catholic Church from the beginning, how can you know unless you are shown? As the eunuch said to Phillip: “How can I know unless some man shows me?” (Acts 8:31). Jesus did not leave us orphans; He gave us His Church and She gave us the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

 

[Leela]

Abu and Thing,

To make my case, I need you to be able to imagine the perspective of a nonCatholic such as an Evangelical or Protestant Christian. You both seem incapable of doing that, and I am apparently only upsetting the two of you by trying to continue this conversation, so I will bow out.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

You are missing the argument that non-Catholics make. The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy was never what was meant by The Church. The Church is the body of Christ. It is the community of followers of Jesus wherever they may be found. It is not the Church that has maintained the scriptures but the Holy Spirit working through specific people rather than a particular organization. Some of these people may have been part of an organization called the RCC, but that does not make the RCC equivalent to the Church to nonCatholics.

Leela, why do you think there are thousands of Protestant sects with different interpretations of the Christ’s teaching? Because individuals have believed the Holy Spirit works through them rather than an organization. There is no doubt that Jesus established a community and appointed a leader. He was not so foolish as to leave his message to the subjective opinions of subsequent generations. Right from the start the Church had a definite structure with the Apostles in positions of authority which were handed down by prayers and the laying on of hands. The Body of Christ is an organic whole with a Head and members with clearly defined functions and sacramental rites. That is why it has survived for over 2000 years in spite of human defects and safeguarded the basic truths of Christianity in the Apostle’s Creed. It was the Catholic Church that selected the writings which constitute the New Testament and on which Protestants base their interpretations of Christ’s teaching!

 

[Abu]

So how did Christ give His authority to His Church to teach His truths?

It is very important to know these facts, as they are often obscured for whatever reason.

Jesus gave four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Who would deny St John and St Paul Too?
The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

As Jesus had commanded: “Going therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19).

And the promise was fulfilled: I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

St. Paul has counseled as to whom to avoid: “Preach the word. Be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching. For there will come a time when far from being content with sound teaching, people are avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes.” (2 Tim 4:3).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14).

St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

 

[Ancient_Magicks]

Some people here are attributing dogma incorrectly, to vehemently claim there is no dogma isn’t a dogma. Read the definitions of dogma here:

google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+dogma&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

It’s almost invariably linked to religious doctrine.

 

[Thing]

Abu and Thing,

To make my case, I need you to be able to imagine the perspective of a nonCatholic such as an Evangelical or Protestant Christian. You both seem incapable of doing that, and I am apparently only upsetting the two of you by trying to continue this conversation, so I will bow out.

Best,
Leela

An Evangelical or Protestant Christian who wishes to know what ‘the church’ was like in 100ad, 200ad, 300ad, 400ad, 500ad, 600ad, 700ad, 800ad, 900ad, 1000ad, 1100ad, 1200ad, 1300ad, 1400ad, 1500ad, need only read what ‘the church’ has taught at those times.
Then they need to look at what their movements teach now, and ask themselves if both are the same. Is what ‘the church’ has taught throughout its history what they now believe.

For, too many people post-reformation believe they can decide what Christianity is instead of allowing ‘the church’ throughout history to inform them of the Christianity of ‘the church’.