Code:
But the answers are only compromises between factions or the enforcement of a view popular with the most powerful party.
Although this comes across at first as cynical, I see that it does have some merit. Teh most popular and powerful “faction” is God, who is Head of the Church. So at the first council, when the Apostles gathered to discuss disagreements, they debated, presented, prayed and then made some decisions. They wrote the final decisions to the faithful in a letter (the first papal encyclical) saying “it seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us…” indicatig that the most popular view and it’s enforcement had a divine origin.
Code:
In some cases the councils are formed at the behest of state authorities rather than the church's own initiative. This was the case with Nicaea, precisely because the faith was so ambiguous. Thank Constantine, not the holy spirit. And thank his centurions, who kept the bishops from killing each other in a communal boxing match.
No, paziego, the council was not called by Constantine because the faith was ambiguous. The council was called to settle the dispute for political and economic reasons. One of the problems was when the Sabbath would be celebrated. Half the empire wanted Saturday off, the other half wanted Sunday, and Constantine wanted the markets open all week.
Constantine was baptized an Arian, and would have been content either way it was settled, so long as everyone agreed. The reason the council needed secular involvement was that Christianity had been illegal for the previous three centuries. Nobody gathered publicly or in Councils under pain of death. Bishops would not have travelled had they not had a guarantee of safe passage. This problem was created by the Empires attitude toward the faith, not by the Church. It was also solved by that same secular authority, who decrimminalized Christianity and promised safe conduct to all Bishops who wished to attend.
Code:
The answers given by councils are not informative in the slightest. What happens is that these are endorsed by the authority and are then supposed to be treated as brute facts by the believers. This means that critical thinking is forbidden on closed questions, especially when the answers are not satisfactory to reason. There has often been a heavy penalty associated with going against these "answers",
They are informative, but not as detailed as we might prefer. We also don’t have all the records and documents that are the foundation of the decisions. Although they are “endorsed by the authority”, one must also keep in mind that they were created by authority.
What is a “brute fact”? Are we allowed to have “brute facts” in the material realm, but not the spirtual?
Critical thinking is encouraged in the Catholic Church. Catholics did most of the critical thinking, education, documenting and scientific inquiry through the Middle Ages. Catholics came up with the scientific method. The difference is that, when we do critical thinking with dogma, we approach it with the knowlege that it has already been settled.
I may wish to conduct an investigation of the melting of the icecaps (someone told me yesterday it was not happening). I can explore all the ideas about global warming, frakking, dissolution of the ozone, use of petroleum fuels, etc., etc. I can compare the current climate with historical climates of the planet, previous ice ages and celestial events that have affected temperatures. No matter how much critical thinking I invest, the fact remains that I am watching the glaciers fall into the sea at an alarming rate. It has happened, it is happening. It is a “brute fact”.
further development of doctrine has nothing to do with re-evaluating the coherence and adequacy of previous answers. .
This is not accurate. On the contrary, when doctrine is developed, all the theological constructs are studied again from the beginning precisely for the purpose of re-evaluating the coherence and adequacy of previous answers. Have you not studied the process of doctrinal development? On what basis do you make such an assertion?
Code:
When we look at what Jesus said, anything that was not an appeal to authority or the declaration of something as brute fact was a mere platitude, or an idea that was already common at the time within Hellenistic philosophy.
Mere platitude? Honestly paziego. It has been suggested on this thread that Catholics are hostile to atheists. One has to wonder who is being hostile.
The most ambiguous element of the faith is the church’s authority in the first place. Their authority has to be presupposed in order to buy their explanations.
Yes. This makes sense for anyone who does not believe in God, or that Jesus is God. If the founder of the Church has no authority, and did not give His authority to her, then it is entirely circular.
