Opinion and Faith

[Arandur]

The Catholic ideal seems to be inherently authoritarian, albeit the authority of the apostolic successors. Catholics are thus discouraged from forming opinions on theological subjects. Hence the Catholic distinction between faith and opinion, faith being the form of belief that Catholics are to hold. A good Catholic has faith in what the Church says to be true and need not, indeed should not, investigate the matter further for the purpose of forming an opinion, i.e. a subjective, independent, rational understanding.

This does not square with any of my personal experience as a life long Catholic. We are encouraged to learn and grow in relationship and understanding with God as much as possible, and to express this life freely with everyone. We are provided a guide along this path in the Church, with the assurance that it at least in its essential defined beliefs is wholly reliable because it is the Spirit Himself guiding.

The element you are latching on to and I think misunderstanding and exaggerating is that those certain defined truths are held firm, such that, since they are affirmed by the Spirit, to rebel against them is to rebel against God.

There is, then, plenty of room for personal understanding and growth, and opinions about the manifestation or expression of various truths, as well as about whether some things not yet specifically defined are true or not.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This does not square with any of my personal experience as a life long Catholic. We are encouraged to learn and grow in relationship and understanding with God as much as possible, and to express this life freely with everyone. We are provided a guide along this path in the Church, with the assurance that it at least in its essential defined beliefs is wholly reliable because it is the Spirit Himself guiding.

My experience is that there are two essential traditions that sometimes cooperate and sometimes compete: 1) the pursuit of truth, and 2) the submission to authority. If you examine Catholic dogma in detail you will almost always find, minimally, a good reason behind it. And yet Catholicism is not sufficonfidently confident in the power of truth and, thus, leans on its authority as well.

Interestingly, this tension is often resolved by a bifurcation between the clergy and the laity with the former doing the thinking about dogma and the latter submitting to its authority.

The element you are latching on to and I think misunderstanding and exaggerating is that those certain defined truths are held firm, such that, since they are affirmed by the Spirit, to rebel against them is to rebel against God.

Obviously, though, Protestants do not have faith that Catholic dogma has been affirmed by the Holy Spirit and thus do not believe that they are rebelling against God. Anyone who believes that Catholic dogma has been affirmed by the Holy Spirit either is (or will become) Catholic or is an idiot. Protestants expressly deny this Catholic claim.

There is, then, plenty of room for personal understanding and growth, and opinions about the manifestation or expression of various truths, as well as about whether some things not yet specifically defined are true or not.

Certainly true. Even if dogma is accepted there are all manner of matters that are not explicitly covered not least of which is how they are applied to one’s life.

But the fact remains, Catholics are discouraged from forming an opinion about dogma, right?

 

[fhansen]

But the fact remains, Catholics are discouraged from forming an opinion about dogma, right?

All Christians have an authority whose tenets they submit and adhere to, whether that be Scripture or church teachings/traditions, etc. Otherwise, what would they be believing in besides there own imaginations?

And so every Christian group I’ve belonged to had at least some dogma, whether written or not, that we were expected to agree with in order to be considered properly Christian.

Likewise the CC proposes for our consideration certain beliefs which she acknowledges we have the right to reject if we don’t agree with them but which she nevertheless maintains that all humans should come to agree with as she upholds them to be the truth regarding God and His will for us.

She also possesses a rich, incomparably vast wealth of writings from Catholic thinkers, philosophers, saints, theologians who’ve added to her understanding of the faith throughout the centuries and who continue to as they probe the various possibilities for what it means to be a believer in God while staying within the basic boundaries she’s set according to the revelation she’s received.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
But the fact remains, Catholics are discouraged from forming an opinion about dogma, right?

Depends. If the the opinion is about the dogma’s truthfulness, there is room for opinion. However, there is lots of room for opinion as to how it should be applied to ones life.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

All Christians have an authority whose tenets they submit and adhere to, whether that be Scripture or church teachings/traditions, etc. Otherwise, what would they be believing in besides there own imaginations?

This is, I think, a false dichotomy: authority vs. imagination.

One can certainly come to Christian belief through an examination of the evidence. Indeed, this is generally how you have to approach it in evangilism.

And so every Christian group I’ve belonged to had at least some dogma, whether written or not, that we were expected to agree with in order to be considered properly Christian.

True enough. But is this really a matter of submission to authority or simply like minds coming together?

She also possesses a rich, incomparably vast wealth of writings from Catholic thinkers, philosophers, saints, theologians who’ve added to her understanding of the faith throughout the centuries and who continue to as they probe the various possibilities for what it means to be a believer in God while staying within the basic boundaries she’s set according to the revelation she’s received.

Right, I’m certainly not taking issue with this tradition.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Depends. If the the opinion is about the dogma’s truthfulness, there is room for opinion. However, there is lots of room for opinion as to how it should be applied to ones life.

Did you really mean to say that there is room for opinion on the truthfulness of dogma? Or was that a typo?

 

[fhansen]

This is, I think, a false dichotomy: authority vs. imagination.

One can certainly come to Christian belief through an examination of the evidence. Indeed, this is generally how you have to approach it in evangilism.

I’m saying that there must exist, from somewhere outside of ourselves, tenets of faith which are held to be true by others and which are proposed for our consideration. And as far as I know, coming to any kind of genuine faith can’t happen without a process of examination of the evidence.

 

[Arandur]

And yet Catholicism is not sufficonfidently confident in the power of truth and, thus, leans on its authority as well.

The problem with your statement here is one you’ve been pretty consistent with, and is common. You don’t fully consider the Catholic perspective, whether you agree with it or not.

In the Catholic perspective, the authority you refer to is none other than that of the Holy Spirit given by Christ. It is not the men of the Church relying on some concept of earthly authority. It is obedience even/especially at the level of the apostolic office to the structure and method of transmission of Truth that Christ provided.

As demonstrated clearly through all the historical heresies, schisms, and continuing proliferation of schismatic beliefs, a simple appeal to truth based on persuasive argument or interpretation is not sufficient to maintain unity and protect the Body of Christ in Truth. God knows this. That is why He has provided various other mechanisms of providing His children with an assurance of what is true that is sufficient to fend off the deceptions of the devil and the foolishness and pride of man. The greatest of these gifts is His Divinely Instituted Church, Christ’s own Body, preserved and led by the Holy Spirit Himself. The Church manifests in not just or even primarily Scripture, but through Tradition and through the Apostolic offices (as described in Scripture, btw).

In short, Scripture alone has only caused endless fractionation; relying on that is like your argument of relying solely on the Truth of an argument. This has been endlessly demonstrated to fail. God knew this; He provided other means to safeguard His children, and one of those means is authority.

We foolish men are easily led astray. Authority provides a stamp of guarantee. And it is not through any lack of confidence in the truth, but rather through the will of God and the authority of the Holy Spirit, that the Church properly proclaims Truth.

Interestingly, this tension is often resolved by a bifurcation between the clergy and the laity with the former doing the thinking about dogma and the latter submitting to its authority.

This dichotomy existed through most of history largely for practical reasons. Education systems were accessible only to few through no fault of the people of the times. In modern times, you find much more lay education, but yes, some inertia due to centuries of culture that tends to leave many among the laity fairly passive. Is there anything wrong with that?

Obviously, though, Protestants do not have faith that Catholic dogma has been affirmed by the Holy Spirit and thus do not believe that they are rebelling against God.

And that just gets to the crux of the argument: what is the Church, and how did God intend to transmit Truth?

What baffles me is how obvious it is that the Protestant “experiment,” if you will, has failed so dramatically; that the proliferation of even contradictory beliefs demonstrates that whatever methods Protestants are using to try to discover, preserve, and transmit Truth have not been sufficient. There must be something more. The Catholic answer is simply “The Church.” The Tradition and Apostolic authority spoken of in the Bible, and that gave the Bible its form.

But the fact remains, Catholics are discouraged from forming an opinion about dogma, right?

I don’t believe that the question itself makes sense.

Are you “discouraged from forming an opinion” about the reality that there is a force that makes matter fall to the ground? And, as more information was verified about that force we call “gravity,” are you “discouraged from forming an opinion,” for instance, about the operation of that force as far as its measurable relationship between bodies of matter?

Of course, there are aspects of how the force of gravity acts that we didn’t always and even don’t now understand. Speculation and investigation into those questions is certainly encouraged by science.

I think that is a very accurate analogy to how the Church views and “encourages” or “discourages” “opinion” about dogma.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m saying that there must exist, from somewhere outside of ourselves, tenets of faith which are held to be true by others and which are proposed for our consideration. And as far as I know, coming to any kind of genuine faith can’t happen without a process of examination of the evidence.

As a practical matter, I would mostly agree. You and I were not there at the resurrection. At a minimum, we must rely on others who were there. Additionally, you and I don’t have time to examine every issue in detail. This is true not only of religion but of life in general.

The way knowledge expansions works, generally speaking, is that someone somewhere researches an issue and comes to a conclusion about it. A few others with knowledge in the field then test the claim. As the claim is found supported by the evidence, it passes into general knowledge so that we “know” a lot more than we can independently verify even if we had the ability to do so simply because we don’t have the time to do so.

So I grant you all of that.

Nevertheless, Catholicism goes further and actively discourages us from examining the truth of dogmatic claims. This is one place where religion and science part ways. Catholicism substitutes unity of belief and belief in infalibility through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[fhansen]

As a practical matter, I would mostly agree. You and I were not there at the resurrection. At a minimum, we must rely on others who were there. Additionally, you and I don’t have time to examine every issue in detail. This is true not only of religion but of life in general.

At some point all Christian faith is a supernatural gift. We certainly can’t prove the resurrection and especially since it’s totally outside of anything we can relate to, we ultimately cannot believe in it without divine help, any evidence notwithstanding.

Nevertheless, Catholicism goes further and actively discourages us from examining the truth of dogmatic claims. This is one place where religion and science part ways. Catholicism substitutes unity of belief and belief in infalibility through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I’m not sure what this means. As stated above, there are certain claims that simply can’t be proven. The Church certainly teaches dogmatically. Do not Protestant Churches dogmatically state that God exists or that the resurrection must be believed in? As stated above there are certain claims that may be supportable but not provable.

Other than that, the CC teaches “primacy of conscience”-that a person must stay true to their consciences, whether or not objectively wrong, unless convinced otherwise in order for faith to be real. This in no way implies, however, that the Church would consider her own teachings to be anything but objectively right. She simply desires all to come to recognize that, too, and agree with her, for the good of us all. Most of us do the same thing in our own ways.

 

[Arandur]

Nevertheless, Catholicism goes further and actively discourages us from examining the truth of dogmatic claims. This is one place where religion and science part ways. Catholicism substitutes unity of belief and belief in infalibility through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I think you’re still missing it. As the Church welcomes everyone to it and opens itself to our examination, it does encourage us to investigate the truth of its claims. Once you’ve accepted that the Spirit preserves the essential teachings from error, you find a confidence in that truth that means you don’t have to question it as much–how much would you question God if you felt He was talking to you directly (and had already proven to you that it was He and not some potential deceiver)?

 

[Dameedna]

I believe there is a difference. The difference is related to their respective sources. That being faith’s source is external, and an opinion’s source is internal…

And how does one know, that their “faith” is external and their “opinion” is internal…

…if they are the one deciding?

The decision is alway’s personal, unless you feel it is forced on you, and if so…how could you claim faith is a choice and that you have free will?

When you have faith, you are still forming an opinion and making a choice about what is true and real.

Unless…

Do you feel as though some-one is choosing faith for you? That faith comes from a source other than yourself, hence negating your ability to choose it in the first place?

 

[Dameedna]

I think you’re still missing it. As the Church welcomes everyone to it and opens itself to our examination, it does encourage us to investigate the truth of its claims. Once you’ve accepted that the Spirit preserves the essential teachings from error, you find a confidence in that truth that means you don’t have to question it as much–how much would you question God if you felt He was talking to you directly (and had already proven to you that it was He and not some potential deceiver)?

Why would you accept the spirit preserves the essential teachings?

Because you choose to? If you do…then you are forming an opinion about…spirit are you not?

 

[Dameedna]

Faith is based on objective truth, not subjective interpretation and understanding. Faith is NOT an opinion. It is an acknowledgment of what I have come to know and accept is objectively TRUE.

And who has made the decision that something IS objectively true?

If they have done that, then it is their view, that it is true. It is their Opinion, that it is true.

Yes, truth will be truth regardless of what we may want.

But when you make a decision about what is true, you are forming an opinion. Unless you can verify it, it can never be considered absolute. It cannot be considered a fact.

 

[Michael_David]

May I add that faith itself is internal (“If you had faith as big as a mustard seed, you could…”) as Christ assigned faith “in” the ones He was talking to. Also, when Christ was walking on the water, and bid Peter to come, Peter did for a step or two, then started to sink. What happened? Faith got Peter on the water, then him trying to reason/intellectualize it started him to sink. Peter left awe and started to think about it… instead of ‘just doing it’. He left the soul action and got to the intellect thoughts.
Christ did His miracles (in person) with the outside help of His Father. Faith is in person, the source of the action is outside. To me, this is our souls interaction with the Spirit, which shows up in our thoughts, our opinions, our beliefs, our faith, our actions, our whole being. Along with the desire to have a closer relationship with this Spirit so as to seek to learn, understand, sense and feel more, to grow in a deeper friendship.

And how many things of the soul/Spirit that are ‘known’ by one’s soul, can be explained effectively by the intellect? Why did Christ talk in parables? They relate to what He was trying to tell us, but was hard for us humans to fully comprehend… without those ‘ears to hear’ or ‘those eye’s to see’ or ‘the heart to feel and know’ without that little mustard seed called faith.

 

[jkiernan56]

And who has made the decision that something IS objectively true?

If they have done that, then it is their view, that it is true. It is their Opinion, that it is true.

Yes, truth will be truth regardless of what we may want.

But when you make a decision about what is true, you are forming an opinion. Unless you can verify it, it can never be considered absolute. It cannot be considered a fact.

If you have any understanding of philosophy, you would realize that truth is NOT a subjective opinion or viewpoint. The greatest truth that we know is that God IS … I AM WHO AM. God has always existed and will always exist. It is God’s nature to exist. Now this objective fact is either TRUE or NOT TRUE. For example, suppose person A believed that God exists and person B believed that God does not exist. They both think that what they believe is TRUE. In that sense you might call that an opinion. But here is the great catch in the logic … something cannot be TRUE and NOT TRUE at the same time. It is either one or the other. It cannot be both. Either God does exist in fact and truth … or God does not exist in fact or truth. God cannot both exist and not exist. That is a contradiction in terms. What I am trying to explain to you is that there is the reality of objective truth independant of you and me and what we believe.

I am writing you this response. You are reading this right now. You also could be dreaming right now. Either you are dreaming or you are not dreaming. You cannot be both dreaming and not dreaming at the same time. It is either TRUE that you are dreraming right now or it is NOT TRUE that you are dreaming right now. Both cannot be TRUE at the same time.

 

[Dameedna]

If you have any understanding of philosophy, you would realize that truth is NOT a subjective opinion or viewpoint.

I never said truth was subjective or opinion.

The greatest truth that we know is that God IS … I AM WHO AM.

No, This is your opinion on what we know and it is your opinion on what is true. There is a difference between what is actually true, and what you think is true.

IE The greatest truth that we know, is that God does not exist.

You see? I can do that too Make a statement and declare it as the “ultimate and undeniable” truth.

God has always existed and will always exist. It is God’s nature to exist. Now this objective fact is either TRUE or NOT TRUE.

Making a claim that God has alway’s existed, is simply you making that claim.

Claims do not = truth.

For example, suppose person A believed that God exists and person B believed that God does not exist. They both think that what they believe is TRUE. In that sense you might call that an opinion. But here is the great catch in the logic … something cannot be TRUE and NOT TRUE at the same time. It is either one or the other. It cannot be both. Either God does exist in fact and truth … or God does not exist in fact or truth. God cannot both exist and not exist. That is a contradiction in terms. What I am trying to explain to you is that there is the reality of objective truth independant of you and me and what we believe.

Yes My friend. I do understand what truth is. Either there is a God, or there is not.

The choice you make about what is or is not true, is your own.

It is called an opinion. Your opinion that God exists, is not by default true.

Truth will alway’s be truth. That doesn’t mean that you have the truth, it only means that truth exists.

 

[davidv]

Did you really mean to say that there is room for opinion on the truthfulness of dogma? Or was that a typo?

Typo.

 

[davidv]

And how does one know, that their “faith” is external and their “opinion” is internal…

…if they are the one deciding?

In the case of faith, someone else is proposing something to you to believe in. In the case of the opinion, it is formed by the intellect of the one who concludes it.

The decision is alway’s personal, unless you feel it is forced on you, and if so…how could you claim faith is a choice and that you have free will?

Being presented to one as an option does not force one to accept it. Given the significant number of those who who have rejected the faith proposal gives ample evidence that the choice is not forced.

When you have faith, you are still forming an opinion and making a choice about what is true and real.

Agreed.

Unless…

Do you feel as though some-one is choosing faith for you? That faith comes from a source other than yourself, hence negating your ability to choose it in the first place?

No and no. See above.

 

[Michael_David]

And who has made the decision that something IS objectively true?

If they have done that, then it is their view, that it is true. It is their Opinion, that it is true.

Yes, truth will be truth regardless of what we may want.

But when you make a decision about what is true, you are forming an opinion. Unless you can verify it, it can never be considered absolute. It cannot be considered a fact.

If one ‘applies’ the “Love God with your whole…” and God is Truth, and Truth is an ‘object’… then that Love (subjective as it is) would be loving an ‘object’ called Love (as God is).

Perhaps the terms ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ do not consider what ‘Truths’ nature really is, and therefore are really missing the mark in definition… while not in the ‘knowing’.