tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post4108319984391977775..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: A solemn announcement (but, with no thanks to Hays, Kepha, TurretinFan, White, et al.)David Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger181125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-86475174542301339002010-02-18T12:11:29.979-08:002010-02-18T12:11:29.979-08:00Hi David,
A friend sent me the link to your posti...Hi David,<br /><br />A friend sent me the link to your posting. I've not posted here before, but know a few of the people who have.<br /><br />I just hope to leave a word of encouragement. As an ex-Catholic I can surely appreciate the anxiety and pain of leaving a faith tradition. On the flip side, when your eyes are opened, acknowledging truth, no matter how much opposition that will raise, is a mark of courage. <br /><br />Prayers are with you in your journey. <br /><br />In Him,<br />AliAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-81423076524145523862010-01-16T10:45:36.477-08:002010-01-16T10:45:36.477-08:00Dear Dave (and any others who may still may be rea...Dear Dave (and any others who may still may be reading),<br /><br />I want to thank you for taking the time to address some of the key issues concerning DD and infallibility; my appreciation for this effort of yours runs quite deep, and I sincerely hope that you will not be too disappointed with my response/s (keep in mind I am just a beachbum). I need to read the last installment, and then, since you linked to it, Hays’ ‘nutty’ response.<br /><br />Some of what I intend to comment on will have certain points of contact with what Jason wrote, but I have moved a bit beyond Jason’s research into this matter. This is not to say that your critique of Jason’s post does not have significant value—it does, especially concerning Newman’s organic theory of DD. <br /><br />Now, a ‘heads-up’ to all who may still be reading these latter comments in this thread: I will be heading off for a 11-day Mexican cruise this coming Thursday; as such, if a robust round of dialogue follows my upcoming thread, articulate, cogent responses from yours truly may be delayed—but I can assure all, if the Lord allows a safe return, I will diligently read all that has transpired, and then continue to contribute.<br /><br />Once again, I would like to thank everyone for their interest, concerns, and efforts.<br /><br /><br />Grace and peace,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-8818985194184604932010-01-16T10:15:48.091-08:002010-01-16T10:15:48.091-08:00I suppose I should be thankful for Hays' conte...I suppose I should be thankful for Hays' contention that a few of my remarks here and there (by chance, no doubt) bear a remote resemblance to rational argument, since Bishop James White, the Grand Poobah of Anti-Catholicism: the Unvanquishable One, has publicly opined about me:<br /><br />"You know, in your heart of hearts, that this fella, uh, bless his soul, has no idea what he's talking about. . . . he's clueless . . . you look at some of his books, and it's just like "wow! there's just no substance here." It's just rattle rattle rattle rattle, and quote John Henry Cardinal Newman and that's the end of the subject. And there's no meaningful argumentation going on at all."<br /><br />So you have White mocking and never responding, Hays mocking and semi-responding, always in his trademark pompous and intellectually unserious fashion, and Engwer seriously responding: when he does (though not without his own severe internal logical problems).<br /><br />Jason will have to choose whether to dissent from his illustrious colleagues: follow the "DA Playbook" and offer nothing of substance (since every thinking person knows I'm not to be taken seriously), or concede that some few of my thoughts are actually worthy of more than passing or mocking consideration.<br /><br />It'll be fun to watch, whatever happens.<br /><br />In any event, I did this for David Waltz's sake: to try to persuade him to stay in the Catholic Church. We may continue to disagree, but at least with him, I know that serious discussion can be had: with <b>truth</b>, not mere rhetorical victory and humiliation of the opponent, the goal in mind and heart.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-55098652567403617022010-01-16T10:03:11.767-08:002010-01-16T10:03:11.767-08:00On the humorous front:
The peanut gallery is alre...On the humorous front:<br /><br />The peanut gallery is already starting in with it's half-baked rhetoric. The following is from Steve Hays, not Jason Engwer, who admirably refrains from this sort of mudslinging silliness:<br /><br />-----------------------<br /><br /><b>Armstrong, acorns, and other mixed nuts</b><br /><br />I’m continuing my response to Armstrong. Armstrong’s basic contention is that modern Catholicism is the oak tree which sprang from the apostolic acorn.<br /><br />No doubt there’s something sufficiently nutty about his reasoning to make that analogy irresistible to squirrels and chipmunks, but whether it commends itself to higher animals is a different question entirely.<br /><br />Much of Armstrong’s reply consists of nothing more than derogatory denials rather than actual counterarguments. Therefore, much of what he says can simply be ignored.<br /><br />I’ll try to isolate the few statements which bear a passing resemblance to a rational argument from all his bluff and bluster. <br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/armstrong-acorns-and-other-mixed-nuts.html<br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />For my part, I'll stick to serious discussion, if Jason is willing to respond. If he isn't, then David Waltz will, son one way or another, fruitful (rather than nutty) discussion can take place.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-48164189675447649872010-01-16T06:53:48.136-08:002010-01-16T06:53:48.136-08:00"Third, regarding the Catholic dogma of trans..."Third, regarding the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, the Tridentine dogma does not commit the Church to any particular metaphysic and certainly does not commit the Church to a specific construal of substance and accidents. The substance/accident distinction is simply a handy and hopefully helpful way to talk about the eucharistic mystery. If you can figure out a better way to talk about the real transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, while respecting the boundaries set by the dogma, then by all means have a go at it."<br /><br />Good point, Fr. Kimel. Most Eastern Catholics (in union with Rome) do not subscribe to the "substance and accidents" understanding, while their faith is unquestionably viewed as orthodox by Rome. Orthodox Christians similarly do not accept the Tridentine wording but the faith of Orthodoxy in the Eucharist is unquestioned by Rome as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-48261362597454040792010-01-15T23:48:40.903-08:002010-01-15T23:48:40.903-08:00Hi David,
I'm done with my critique. I kept i...Hi David,<br /><br />I'm done with my critique. I kept it at four parts: adding just a few short sections to the end a few minutes ago (originally planned to be part of a Part V).<br /><br />The combox goes on and on and on tendentiously about mostly Orthodox issues. There is no need for me to spend the next decade barreling through all that.<br /><br />I'll have enough to do if Jason decides to reply: in which case he will likely write ten times more words than there are atoms in the universe; and I will also presumably be dialoguing with you, if you want to. That is quite sufficient without lengthening my original. My main points are made.<br /><br />So we can get on to Round Two now, and I can have a far more leisurely weekend.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-82159224654508184792010-01-15T22:46:48.242-08:002010-01-15T22:46:48.242-08:00Hey Dave Waltz,
I am interested in the way you ar...Hey Dave Waltz,<br /><br />I am interested in the way you are troubled about "papal infallibility". Do your concerns reach back to 1870 or to 325? You are clear that you conside the Catholic Church to continue to be Christian, albeit minimally, as according to commentators like Hodge who would nevertheloes less fell free to distance himnself from her discipline. <br /><br />I have always asked myself where my heroes would go to church. For better or worse, I am guided and deliberately aim at believing what the early martyrs believed first. After that, there are guys...and aand several gals (saints, no irreverent familiarity meant)...whose faith I am self-consciously following.<br /><br />I ask where several saints whose faith I try to emulate would go to Mass/Church if they lived in 1995 when I converted and continuing to 2010. When Dave W., in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church would you have been forced to leave (if you had been alive). Clearly, by 2010, Christian though it may be, you are compelled to leave the Catholic Church. Is Nicea okay? Chalcedon still good? The Council that defined transubstantiation? Trent? Vatican I? Vatican II?<br /><br />If I am good at Nicea, I keep on going...all the way. to Vatican II...and beyond. I don't think the Bible so clearly teaches Nicene doctrine that I believe the doctrine because of my private reading of the Bible. I could get to the doctrines of Trent sola scriptura faster than to Nicea. But I admit, the Bible alone is a morass... a formula for being tossed about per Ephesians. <br /><br />So...to be Protestant, I am saying I would have to review EVERYTHING and would be left without a conclusion on some pretty big stuff. Like St. Irenaeus, I am willing to place my hopes on Rome, the city of Sts. Peter and Paul, because of her "pre-eminent authority". If Christ warned the church of Asia Minor that their lampstands could be taken away if they were unfaithful, one presumes the same deal existed for all the local churches, including the one at Rome. I am Roman Catholic. I think there is clear evidence that I am in safety by affiliating with the doctrines and practices handed down from that local congregation. I am a congregationalist, following the Church of Rome...and Catholic at the same time! Heh.<br /><br />RoryLisamckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04058349659904420984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-59809781232939721032010-01-15T19:52:15.067-08:002010-01-15T19:52:15.067-08:00Dear David, a couple of thoughts:
First, belief a...Dear David, a couple of thoughts:<br /><br />First, belief and disbelief are equally mysterious. How is it that one can begin to believe in Christ and his Church? Surely it is not just a matter of adding up probabilities. If that is what is involved, then our faith would only be as secure as our historical scholarship and philosophical reasoning. Similarly, how is it that one can stop believing after one has surrendered one's heart and mind to Christ and his Church? Surely it is not because someone has pointed out a flaw in our reasoning or because we have found a contradictory piece of historical evidence of which we were previously unaware. I do not know how to explain either faith or disfaith. Both are equally mysterious to me. The truth lies somewhere between rationalism and fideism.<br /><br />The citation from Newman I quoted above zeroes in on a crucial element. For the Catholic (or for the Eastern Orthodox) the interpretation of historical data is informed by faith. This applies both to our faith in Jesus of Nazareth and to our faith in the Church and her claims. <br /><br />Historical research will always pose "difficulties" for faith. How does one assess, for example, the probabilitiy of Jesus' resurrection?! When we encounter these difficulties, we do not stop believing until the difficulties are resolved to our intellectual satisfaction; rather, we continue to believe, trusting that if all the facts were available to us, then the ostensible difficulties would disappear.<br /><br />Of course, sometimes the difficulties mount and mount and one finds one no longer believes. This, too, is a mystery. Lord, have mercy. <br /><br />See, e.g., <a href="http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2010/01/are-gospels-reliable-letter-to-young.html" rel="nofollow">George Hunsinger's Barthian take on history and faith</a>. Is believing in the infallibility of the Catholic Church more difficult than believing in the Incarnation or Resurrection? Why is the latter more probable than the former? How does one rationally negotiate the difference? I do not know the answer. It truly is a mystery to me. <br /><br />Second, perhaps the example of Newman may be helpful. He did not come to believe in the claims of the Catholic Church because of the Pope. He came to believe in the claims of the Catholic Church because he became convinced that the notes of apostolicity, catholicity, unity, and sanctity were fully embodied in the Catholic Church. “To the poor is the Gospel preached,” Newman wrote. “Accordingly the notes of the Church are simple and easy, and obvious to all capacities. Let a poor man look at the Church of Rome, and he will see that it has that which no other Church has.” Newman was insistent that the infallibility of the Pope is not the basis of the Catholic religion. Catholic apologists need to learn from Newman on this point. <br /><br />Third, regarding the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, the Tridentine dogma does not commit the Church to any particular metaphysic and certainly does not commit the Church to a specific construal of substance and accidents. The substance/accident distinction is simply a handy and hopefully helpful way to talk about the eucharistic mystery. If you can figure out a better way to talk about the real transformation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, while respecting the boundaries set by the dogma, then by all means have a go at it. <br /><br />May God guide you in your journey, David. <br /><br />Yours in Christ,<br />Fr Alvin KimelStriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07859685939890312325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-90309289254438093462010-01-15T17:46:06.329-08:002010-01-15T17:46:06.329-08:00Hi David,
Well, that motivates me to work harder ...Hi David,<br /><br />Well, that motivates me to work harder and faster to get to the end of this thing, cuz I wanna see the replies to it! Looks like it'll be a busy weekend. No rest for the wicked.<br /><br />If Jason keeps making error after error in his comments (as is his wont), then I'll have all that more work to do. It's extremely time-consuming.<br /><br />But I'll probably do a marathon tomorrow because we're busy Sunday till the evening, and I should rest anyway . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-1521604563280966812010-01-15T16:19:21.846-08:002010-01-15T16:19:21.846-08:00Please post a new installment on your blog, inform...Please post a new installment on your blog, informing the readers on your current stance on various doctrinal or dogmatical issues. <br /><br />And don't ceise reading history: because there's no point in denying past realities.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-28961947029344769432010-01-15T15:44:48.022-08:002010-01-15T15:44:48.022-08:00Hi Dave,
Cannot speak for anyone other than mysel...Hi Dave,<br /><br />Cannot speak for anyone other than myself, but I have been reading the posts here, as well as the new series you have started over at your blog (now four installments). My fever is finally gone, so my energy to begin posting again has returned; but, I am inclined to wait to until you have finished your series before doing so. I sincerely appreciate the time you are taking to respond, and can assure you, that your efforts (and those of so many others), are not falling on deaf ears. I have much to share, but as I said, shall defer to you at this time. <br /><br />God bless,<br /><br />DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-89797227165707691792010-01-15T14:54:40.999-08:002010-01-15T14:54:40.999-08:00Part IV, where I start replying to Jason's com...Part IV, where I start replying to Jason's combox comments, is now completed:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/01/reply-to-protestant-apologist-jason_15.html<br /><br />Still a long way to go. That's how it is when there are errors in practically every sentence that require much time and labor to refute. Someone's gotta do it.<br /><br />Where the heck is everyone? All of a sudden it's a ghost town in here. Probably the calm before the storm, I predict . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-55020659469893116562010-01-14T18:36:15.564-08:002010-01-14T18:36:15.564-08:00Part III is now posted as well:
http://socrates58...Part III is now posted as well:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/01/reply-to-protestant-apologist-jason_5966.html<br /><br />That completes my reply to Jason's post proper. I also plan a Part IV to take on further arguments of his in the lengthy combox.<br /><br />If Jason decides to counter-reply, look for this thing to explode into billions of words, maybe trillions, because when he gets going with his obfuscation and relentless bald assertions, one on top of the other, the sky's the limit. :-)Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-81324698406870641602010-01-14T13:29:12.850-08:002010-01-14T13:29:12.850-08:00Part II of my lengthy reply to Jason Engwer on inf...Part II of my lengthy reply to Jason Engwer on infallibility, the canon, and development (the post that troubled David Waltz so much) is now posted:<br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/01/reply-to-protestant-apologist-jason_14.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-21316512400555383992010-01-13T22:41:24.819-08:002010-01-13T22:41:24.819-08:00Excellent. I was gonna get to that and many other ...Excellent. I was gonna get to that and many other similar utterances from Cardinal Newman in my reply. Exactly my thoughts as well . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-38723398736046011262010-01-13T20:44:29.569-08:002010-01-13T20:44:29.569-08:00Perhaps the following citation from Cardinal Newma...<i>Perhaps the following citation from Cardinal Newman might be helpful for the present discussion:</i><br /><br />Why should Ecclesiastical History, any more than the text of Scripture, contain in it “the whole counsel of God”? Why should private judgment be unlawful in interpreting Scripture against the voice of authority, and yet be lawful in the interpretation of history? … For myself, I would simply confess that no doctrine of the Church can be rigorously proved by historical evidence: but at the same time that no doctrine can be simply disproved by it. Historical evidence reaches a certain way, more or less, towards a proof of the Catholic doctrines; often nearly the whole way; sometimes it goes only as far as to point in their direction; sometimes there is only an absence of evidence for a conclusion contrary to them; nay, sometimes there is an apparent leaning of the evidence to a contrary conclusion, which has to be explained;—in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church. He who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic. It is the Church’s dogmatic use of History in which the Catholic believes; and she uses other informants also, Scripture, tradition, the ecclesiastical sense or phronema, and a subtle ratiocinative power, which in its origin is a divine gift. There is nothing of bondage or “renunciation of mental freedom” in this view, any more than in the converts of the Apostles believing what the Apostles might preach to them or teach them out of Scripture. (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)Striderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07859685939890312325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-24010060238050310682010-01-13T20:31:44.511-08:002010-01-13T20:31:44.511-08:00Hi Chris,
You can have the last word on this. I&#...Hi Chris,<br /><br />You can have the last word on this. I'm involved now in actually trying to make some answer to one of the arguments about development of doctrine that troubled David. The private judgment thing is extraneous to that, and far less important in the circumstances.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-43644583846871543192010-01-13T17:38:15.304-08:002010-01-13T17:38:15.304-08:00Hi Dave,
I guess I'm still a bit confused as ...Hi Dave,<br /><br />I guess I'm still a bit confused as to what exactly your view <i>is</i>. Earlier in the thread you seemed to agree with me that supernatural faith is one of a number of different factors that must be kept in balance during our judgment-process, along with reason, experience, intuition, mysticism, and conscience. Now though, you seem to be denying that it is part of our conscious awareness, and more or less equating it with Providence. And I still can't figure out, given either definition, how any of this solves the problem of the logical and temporal priority of private judgment to the acceptance of infallibility. <br /><br />And to complicate matters, you went on at some length about how your point was that truth is objective and external to ourselves, which I don't really disagree with and which in any case doesn't seem to have much to do with your points about faith and infallibility.<br /><br />Perhaps your real point lies in your statement that "a Catholic has already rejected private judgment insofar as it clashes with the Church." Under this view, a Catholic by becoming a Catholic has forfeited his right to question the Church. I can't figure out, though, whether this is a legal argument (i.e. "you made an oath, so your soul is ours") or a sort of logical/developmental argument (i.e. "private judgment was an earlier, childlike state of existence, but now you have passed beyond it to the higher level of robotically accepting infallibility"). (Please forgive my wry and possibly offensive attempt at humor.) <br /><br />To the legal argument, I'd respond that our obligation to the truth is at least as important as our obligation to keep our oaths, so if we find out that an oath violates this other moral and legal obligation, then I'd view breaking the oath as the lesser evil. To the logical/developmental argument, I'd go back to the issue of the logical and temporal priority of private judgment. By denying the authority of private judgment to judge the tradition, the Catholic denies the very means by which s/he came to accept the tradition in the first place, and thus undermines his/her own position. Realistically, private judgment simply <i>cannot</i> be forfeited, because our reason/intuition/conscience/faith etc. are always with us, no matter how we may try to suppress them. I suspect God designed us that way.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />-ChrisChristopher Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539170598198122642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-29128807816284792302010-01-13T16:57:17.648-08:002010-01-13T16:57:17.648-08:00If the appeal to supernatural faith is used to exc...<i>If the appeal to supernatural faith is used to exclude questioning and/or deconversion, however, then you have gone much too far.</i><br /><br />But I've never done that. You keep implying that I have, and I keep saying it ain't my view.<br /><br /><i>Your question to David earlier in the thread-- "why is it that one has placed their private judgment and personal doubts above the judgment of the Church in the first place?"-- leads me to believe that you are using it in this latter way.</i><br /><br />The question makes perfect sense when asked of a catholic, because a Catholic has already rejected private judgment insofar as it clashes with the Church: in faith. Therefore, it is perfectly relevant to ask by what process a catholic has gone from the Catholic rule of faith (infallible Church authority) to a Protestant one of private judgment.<br /><br /><i>I'd also add that the significance of supernatural faith can only be as strong as the experience of it.</i><br /><br />It's not an experience, but an act of God which is not necessarily consciously felt at all.<br /><br /><i>In the case of your "supernatural infusion of faith," it seems like it would be difficult even to identify it as such.</i> <br /><br />That is not the ultimate criterion of proof, but rather, what the Bible says about it. One who believes it is already believing that the Bible is inspired.<br /><br /><i>And again, there is always the possibility that someone just won't feel much in the way of supernatural faith at all, in which case the appeal to said faith won't be a particularly compelling defense.</i><br /><br />Again, you compare mere feeling with God's sovereign actions.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-29547027085804275602010-01-13T16:46:45.859-08:002010-01-13T16:46:45.859-08:00Hi Dave A,
I still think you're coming very c...Hi Dave A,<br /><br />I still think you're coming very close to question-begging and a double standard. Pointing to supernatural faith is fine, as long as you only mean that people should take their felt conviction into account when making decisions (and as long as this standard is applied consistently to religious people across the board, and not just to Catholics). If the appeal to supernatural faith is used to exclude questioning and/or deconversion, however, then you have gone much too far. Your question to David earlier in the thread-- "why is it that one has placed their private judgment and personal doubts above the judgment of the Church in the first place?"-- leads me to believe that you are using it in this latter way. Newman did the same, and I critiqued his double standard <a href="http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/2008/07/some-objections-to-newmans-anti.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />I'd also add that the significance of supernatural faith can only be as strong as the experience of it. When I was a Pentecostal, our extra-rational justification was miracles. The nice thing about that was that it was fairly objective and observable (although many experiences were highly subjective as well, such as speaking in tongues, hearing God's voice, etc.). Ultimately I decided that most of the experiences I had been socialized to view as miraculous were not really all that miraculous, so the extra-rational leg-up was no longer compelling to me. When I investigated Mormonism, I was told that I could obtain an extra-rational "testimony" experience if I prayed about the Book of Mormon. I did so, but obtained only weak and conflicting emotional sensations. So again, the extra-rational component was not deeply compelling to me. In the case of your "supernatural infusion of faith," it seems like it would be difficult even to identify it as such. And again, there is always the possibility that someone just won't feel much in the way of supernatural faith at all, in which case the appeal to said faith won't be a particularly compelling defense. I suspect that if David W really had experienced a powerful and identifiable sensation of supernatural faith in RC infallibility, he wouldn't be making the decision he's making. But I suppose I'll have to let him speak for himself on that count.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />-ChrisChristopher Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539170598198122642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-25344681371734641572010-01-13T15:45:20.069-08:002010-01-13T15:45:20.069-08:00I have begun what will be a very lengthy critique ...I have begun what will be a very lengthy critique of the Jason Engwer article that David W. has stated was one prominent cause for his change of mind:<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/canon-and-church-infallibility.html<br /><br />Here is my first installment:<br /><br /><i>Reply to Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer's Post, "The Canon & Church Infallibility" (An Alleged Disproof of Catholic Development of Doctrine), Pt. I</i><br /><br />http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/01/reply-to-protestant-apologist-jason.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-76089395208823085482010-01-13T13:52:26.909-08:002010-01-13T13:52:26.909-08:00Dave A,
Thank you for your comments. It does make...Dave A,<br />Thank you for your comments. It does make sense to me that an “eye of faith” is important for difficult issues when one is part of a particular faith tradition. <br /><br />I would suggest that there are many different degrees of conviction however. I know that I once sustained my conviction with an over reliance (close to total reliance) upon reason (as I perceived reason). Evidence against my tradition, especially when it was associated with the reason(s) I believed in the first place could (and did in one instance) shake my conviction considerably. <br /><br />Today, in my occasional apologetic efforts, I offer reason and for me the case is still compelling. But were I to become convinced that reason did not strongly point me in the direction I have gone, I would then have a conflict between my spiritual witness and my intellectual witness. <br /><br />I, like Cardinal Newman during Vatican I, am thankful for the faith to see the landscape of my tradition in a way that aligns both my spiritual and intellectual witnesses. I, like Cardinal Newman respect those who struggle and feel bad when others think they must (1)leave the faith, (2)tolerate conflict between their intellectual witness and their spiritual witness, or (3)jettison significant (IMO) portions of the faith. <br /><br />And since you asked, I am a LDS (a Mormon).<br />Charity, TOmTOmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511360918671604918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-48269458337797479592010-01-13T11:07:23.589-08:002010-01-13T11:07:23.589-08:00[cont.]
Yes, plausibility and belief structures a...[cont.]<br /><br />Yes, plausibility and belief structures all involve axioms, reasonable assumptions and preferability of one option over another. I feel strongly that Catholicism is true because of an overwhelming number of cumulative evidences all taken together: like the proverbial strands of a rope. Papal infallibility is an example of a belief thus confirmed.<br /><br /><i>This is my attempt at a rational argument for my faith tradition in light of difficult aspects.</i><br /><br />The overall approach is agreeable to me. We would disagree on how it comes down, in conclusions.<br /><br /><i>2. A position that I believe has merit for me, but is of little apologetic value (with the exception of the fact that I believe it is most reasonable to conclude that there is a supernatural being who exists) is my personal witness from God for my faith tradition. If I didn’t think the above rational (attempted rational) argument supported the difficult aspects of my faith tradition, I could still suggest that those things that are plausible but unlikely are still true in light of the experience I have personally had. This of course does little for external dialogue, but IMO it is not an irrational (just and extra rational) position.</i><br /><br />I think there are beliefs that are warranted, that go beyond reason, per Plantinga's arguments for warranted Christian beliefs, properly basic beliefs, etc.<br /><br />So, I quite expect that your would say that #1 is a good reason to accept what is merely plausible about Papal Infallibility, but your “eye of faith” argument looked much more like Catholicism should receive a preferential “eye of faith” where I doubt you would grant such to Mormonism. It sounded like your “eye of faith” was much more of a #2 than a #1 to me.<br /><br />I hope I have explained sufficiently. I was describing the critique of one Catholic (Newman), whose development theory is presently being questioned by David W., to another Catholic (Dollinger) who refused to abide by the proclamation of an ecumenical council: a position that is indistinguishable, as far as it goes, with Luther's stance.<br />I wasn't implying in the slightest that this particular notion would be persuasive to anyone outside of Catholicism, except to note that all Christians have a place for faith. So this faith, within the Catholic paradigm, is applied to the papal infallibility issue as well as all others. It's not reduced to <i>merely</i> historical argumentation. It's not historical positivism. One must interpret, and that is always the more fascinating part of the process.<br /><br /><i>Anyway, I will be interested to see how you might flesh out “eye of faith.”</i><br /><br />I hope I have helped you better understand where I am coming from. Thanks again for the opportunity and the good discussion.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-69952599016340362782010-01-13T11:06:48.007-08:002010-01-13T11:06:48.007-08:00Hi Tom,
ME: “He [Dollinger] couldn't grasp it...Hi Tom,<br /><br />ME: “He [Dollinger] couldn't grasp it [Papal Infallibility] because he wasn't viewing it with the eye of faith and reason.”<br /><br /><i>When I read this I find it easy to make a characterization of it and then dismiss it as unhelpful, but perhaps I do not understand what is being said here.</i><br /><br />I'm glad you decided to ask for clarification. That is always better than taking the risk of misunderstanding someone, so thanks!<br /><br /><i>A number of folks on this thread (David W included) are searching for truth. Some of us have strong commitments to our traditions and others have more neutral stances. It would seem to me that from a neutral stance or from a commitment to another faith tradition, the appeal to look at Papal Infallibility with “the eye of faith” would ring rather hollow.</i> <br /><br />Of course it would, but everything is written in a context. There are several conversations in this thread going on simultaneously, and the subject matter is quite subtle, complex, and nuanced.<br /><br />My comment there was in a specifically Catholic paradigm, but also placed within a larger overall point I was making about the necessity of supernatural faith: with which all Christian traditions agree.<br /><br />I have been arguing (over against self-described "pluralist" Chris) that Christian faith cannot be reduced to mere philosophy or reason. Nor can it be reduced to historiography.<br /><br />And so the criticism against Dollinger that Cardinal Newman made in 1870 was along these lines: he thought that he couldn't accept papal infallibility because he was thinking merely in historiographical terms and in effect reducing Catholic historical considerations to that. But one must also look at things with the eye of faith.<br /><br />Dollinger was a Catholic, you see, and was an historian. He rejected papal infallibility on historiographical grounds. Newman responded (see above) that he wasn't quibbling about bare historical facts, but rather, with how to interpret them. And the interpretive framework is what requires faith. This is not Catholic-specific: it applies to any Christian person or group who wants to interpret history "Christianly."<br /><br />I suspect this may be part of David W's rationale, too, for why he has concluded what he has. He seems to be reading some material that tends toward this over-rationalism and minimizes the place that every Christian reserves for faith: a thing that transcends reason without being contrary to it.<br /><br /><i>The whole point is that we are trying to know if there is something worth having faith in. Unless Catholicism holds some type of priority for us, it does not seem to me that it deserves this “leg up” any more than any number of paradigms.</i><br /><br />That's right. It has to be argued, with those persons who have not yet accepted it. It's what I do as an apologist.<br /><br /><i>1. In my particular faith tradition,</i> <br /><br />Which is what? It would help to know where you are coming from, to have a more constructive conversation.<br /><br /><i>I speak of the overwhelmingly strong (to me) position associated with some unique aspects AND from this suggest that the most consistent view of the most difficult issues is one that either breaks the tradition (like being a Cafeteria Catholic) OR looks at the weak positions with a boost from the other strong points. If A being true entails B being true and the case for A being true is overwhelming, then one can infer that B is true even if it is unlikely but slightly plausible that B is true.</i>Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-50343856094396889982010-01-13T08:56:22.647-08:002010-01-13T08:56:22.647-08:00Dave Armstrong said:
“He [Dollinger] couldn't ...Dave Armstrong said:<br />“He [Dollinger] couldn't grasp it [Papal Infallibility] because he wasn't viewing it with the eye of faith and reason.”<br /><br />TOm:<br />When I read this I find it easy to make a characterization of it and then dismiss it as unhelpful, but perhaps I do not understand what is being said here.<br /><br />A number of folks on this thread (David W included) are searching for truth. Some of us have strong commitments to our traditions and others have more neutral stances. It would seem to me that from a neutral stance or from a commitment to another faith tradition, the appeal to look at Papal Infallibility with “the eye of faith” would ring rather hollow. The whole point is that we are trying to know if there is something worth having faith in. Unless Catholicism holds some type of priority for us, it does not seem to me that it deserves this “leg up” any more than any number of paradigms.<br /><br />1. In my particular faith tradition, I speak of the overwhelmingly strong (to me) position associated with some unique aspects AND from this suggest that the most consistent view of the most difficult issues is one that either breaks the tradition (like being a Cafeteria Catholic) OR looks at the weak positions with a boost from the other strong points. If A being true entails B being true and the case for A being true is overwhelming, then one can infer that B is true even if it is unlikely but slightly plausible that B is true. This is my attempt at a rational argument for my faith tradition in light of difficult aspects.<br /><br />2. A position that I believe has merit for me, but is of little apologetic value (with the exception of the fact that I believe it is most reasonable to conclude that there is a supernatural being who exists) is my personal witness from God for my faith tradition. If I didn’t think the above rational (attempted rational) argument supported the difficult aspects of my faith tradition, I could still suggest that those things that are plausible but unlikely are still true in light of the experience I have personally had. This of course does little for external dialogue, but IMO it is not an irrational (just and extra rational) position.<br /><br />So, I quite expect that your would say that #1 is a good reason to accept what is merely plausible about Papal Infallibility, but your “eye of faith” argument looked much more like Catholicism should receive a preferential “eye of faith” where I doubt you would grant such to Mormonism. It sounded like your “eye of faith” was much more of a #2 than a #1 to me.<br /><br />Anyway, I will be interested to see how you might flesh out “eye of faith.”<br /><br />Charity, TOmTOmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12511360918671604918noreply@blogger.com