S
SteveG
Guest
II Paradox II:
II Paradox II:
II Paradox II:
…CONTINUED…
Of course. Ultimately we are making faith claims here which defy absolute proofs. I would suggest though that the protestant experience (reformed or otherwise) does argue strongly for the necessity of a final authority in doctrinal matters.I would agree that much of the protestant world is caught up in an ahistorical muddle plenty of times. The lack of context, both historical and otherwise often leads many protestants down some very odd paths. In that respect, I don’t have any argument with you. However, that being the case, I still don’t think that validates the claims of the CC to point out that problem in others.
II Paradox II:
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree here. I think that many people of all faiths are too eager to look for a open and shut case when it comes to doctrinal issues. They want to have things in black and white, and tied up in a nice package. I’ll agree that many doctrines defy that desire. For instance, I don’t feel less secure that the issue of Papal primacy was less clear than we might like in the second century; nonetheless, the proponderence of evidence points in favor of it, in at least seed form even in the those early years. And certainly it had become established and accepted well before the 2nd council of Nicea. Further, I think biblical exegis of this issue certainly does come down convincingly on the Catholic side when it comes to the primacy of Peter and apostolic succession (which go hand in hand). That’s a whole other issue though. It also should be noted that any blip in a particular methodology may in our eyes appear larger than it really is from the eyes of the Church. From Newman to us, impresses us as a long time for an institution to be using a certain methedology. But the church moves in terms of Centuries. For all we know, that particular methodology may indeed be found ultimately wanting, and fall out of favor.The issue I have with the CC in particular is that while it claims a historical perspective and actually holds to it in many areas, it’s methodologies are increasingly driving it away from a true connection to history. I’ll give you a few examples:
In essence, I’m not convinced that the philosophy of history asserted by Newman and so many here is really leading to a greater appreciation of history as it was, but a flattening of it to fit our modern dogmatic needs.
- The modern fascination with Development of Doctrine has, IMO, weakened the connection between catholic doctrinal assertions and history itself. This has occured because DoD, as a method of historical interpretation, justifies the discontinuity of belief between our time and previous times by in part flattening out the historical details that would cause doubts to arise over the legitimacy of certain claims. In metaphorical terms, it is somewhat akin to finding to a string on the ground that is all tied up in knots (the messy details of history) and then grabbing both ends of the string and pulling it straight. DoD acts the person who grabs one end of the string (the earliest belief - the DNA of doctrine), then finds the other end of the string (what we believe now) and just pulls on them to make the whole thing look straight.
II Paradox II:
And therein lies the crux of the issue. YOU don’t think their claims hold up, while they (and I) do? Now who shall arbitrate? Once again, this boils down to a ‘figure it out for yourself’ philosophy on an issue by issue basis. I’ll ask again, if Jesus was who we believe, does this make any sense as being the position he would have left us in?One further point is simply this - I don’t doubt that the magesterium relies on scholarship and broad context to establish it’s claims (it has some of the best scholars in the world). My issue is that I don’t think they are always right and I don’t think their grand claims can be lived up to.
…CONTINUED…