Why assume that faith is the “opposite” of sight, or the “opposite” of reason? That is, why presuppose a Manichean conception of the relation of faith and reason right from the start? If grace builds on nature and perfects nature, then faith is not the opposite of reason, but the perfection of reason beyond its own light, by a divine revelation that one accepts on divine authority because God is supremely trustworthy and can neither lie nor err. In that case there is no doubt intrinsic to faith. Not seeing for oneself does not entail doubt *if* one has the sure testimony of God Himself. Doubt means either one does not know *whether* God has spoken, or *what* has God spoken. So if doubt is intrinsic to the Reformed conception of faith, it entails that the Reformed do not know whether or what God has spoken. That is altogether different from the Catholic paradigm, in which we know *that* God has spoken and *what* God has spoken (i.e. the content of divine revelation), because God spoke for that very purpose (i.e. that we would know what He said), but as pilgrims on the way we do not yet see the *object* of divine revelation (i.e. God Himself, face to face).from the same link , comment 457:
What should be counted as evidence for and against Catholicism? Having been Catholic most of my life and read my share of church history, I am well aware of the sorts of problems that have plagued the Catholic Church, both today and over the centuries. As I’ve pointed out before, I was even sexually abused as a pubescent by a priest. That counts as a pretty big negative right there. In fact, I’d say for myself what Jason has said elsewhere for himself: I am Catholic not because I like it–my feelings are mixed, to say the least–but only because I believe Catholicism to be true. But my reasons for for reaching that conclusion include no belief to the effect that Catholics in general are better than other people, or that the Catholic hierarchy generally consists of better people than either Catholic laity or other clergy. Even if those beliefs are true–which I doubt–I would not know how to argue for them. My reasons are strictly epistemological, and I have repeatedly explained what those are. So, without speaking for Jason, I’d say that I on the one hand and you and Darryl on the other simply disagree is about what would count as evidence for and against the truth of Catholicism.
That disagreement is of course epistemological, but the epistemological issue runs still deeper. Again, and as I often say, it arises from a fundamental difference of interpretive paradigm (IP). We simply have mutually incompatible ways of interpreting the relevant data-sets for theological purposes, before we even get to the question of relative evidential weight–a question that cannot be usefully addressed without first addressing the overall difference of IP. So if we’re going to discuss what counts as evidence for and against Catholicism, we need first to assess the CIP and the PIP against each other, without begging the question by evaluating either one in terms of the assumptions characteristic of the other. But I can detect little interest, on your part or Darryl’s, in doing that. You merely proceed as though the evidential criteria characteristic of your IP are the only ones worth bothering with. To my mind, that begs the question and is thus a waste of time.
Darryl’s other main point was this:
I think it is better for me to be modest about the truth claims of Reformed Protestantism. I see no such modesty on Jason and the Callers part. And this comes at a time when the RC hierarchy itself has abandoned its former immodest claims. But then again, no one here ever acknowledges the detour that Rome took with Vatican 2. (It’s as if Jason and the Callers believe post Vatican 2 is really no different from the church for which SSPXer’s pine.)
Now for one thing, it is simply false that “no one here ever acknowledges the detour that Rome took with Vatican 2.” Bryan has posted several articles which, among other things, address that issue; both he and I have addressed it repeatedly in the comboxes since this site started. In my experience–which is far broader than my experience at CTC–it is one of the most common objections to Catholicism I face from people who consider themselves believers. And it’s worth taking seriously, because at its heart, it holds that the Magisterium teaching with its full authority has contradicted itself–which could not be the case if it were infallible when teaching with its full authority. But Bryan, I, and many others have repeatedly addressed just that point–as have many contemporary Catholic authors–showing that the Magisterium has not contradicted itself when teaching with its full authority about ecclesiology.
Of course, the critics’ response to that defense typically is that we defenders are “re-interpreting” the pertinent ecclesiological claims so as to make them appear mutually consistent, when they actually are not. That is basically what the SSPX’s response to Pope Benedict was, which is why that organization is not reconciled with Rome, and still considers itself more Catholic than the Pope. I can assure you that they won’t fare any better with Pope Francis. But notice once again that the dispute is about how tointerpret certain statements and facts. One can do that in terms of the “hermeneutic of continuity” (HoC) advocated by Ratzinger and the consensus of the Catholic hierarchy as a whole, or one can do it in terms of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” (HoD) advocated by Catholic rad-trads, Catholic progressives, and many conservative Protestants such as Darryl. I favor the HoC because I believe it takes account of a wider range of theologically relevant facts, and explains them in a way that makes more sense, than does the HoD. Of course Darryl, the SSPX, et all disagree. But my main point is that one cannot even address the disagreement rationally if one simply assumes, as Darryl et al do, that the HoD is correct and that the advocates of HoC are simply burying their heads in the sand. Once again, it’s an issue of clashing IPs; and once again, the question is being begged by the critics of the Roman Magisterium.
You write:
In reality, if we’re honest with ourselves (and not typing on a blog for public consumption) we really aren’t 100% convinced of the truth of much in this life. We don’t have to be 100% convinced, though, and we don’t need an alleged fallible[sic]interpreter to find something to stake our lives on.
Although, like Darryl, you’re suggesting that we at CTC are being dishonest, I would not say you’re being malicious (though, for all I know, you might be). I just think that the way you conceive the nature of the assent of faith, which fundamentally differs from ours, is so obvious to you that you simply cannot imagine that we might honestly adopt ours for reasons we honestly believe to be good. Once again, that’s a paradigm difference. But once again, you’re not not really addressing that sort of difference; you simply assume that our paradigm must be a dishonest fiction.
In reality, it is nothing other than the teaching of the Catholic Church. Consider these two paragraphs from the CCC, especially the second:
156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So “that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.”29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but “the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.”31 “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.”32
You ought to have some sympathy with the first paragraph at least. Thus you finish the above-quoted paragraph as follows:
We only need to be convinced that what we have found is better than the available alternatives. Reformed Protestantism is clearer and better than both atheism and Catholicism. That’s why I’m a Reformed Protestant.
So we agree that one ought to have reasons for making whatever religious commitment one chooses to make. But in view of what I’ve just quoted from the CCC, we disagree on three points: (a) What should the reasons should be? (b) What is the relative strength of the reasons for and against our respective religious commitments, and (c) Can a faith commitment entail certainty? That kind of disagreement points up still-more-basic epistemological differences. So when you conclude:
As I’ve said many, many time, I think you guys have epistemological problems that you think Rome has an answer to. I disagree.
you are quite right. But if this discussion is to make any progress, you need to understand how the basic disagreement is one of IP, and what is involved in assessing our mutually incompatible IPs against each other. You’re not there yet, any more than Darryl is.
see also http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-do-we-decide-on-christian-truth.html
see also http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-do-we-decide-on-christian-truth.html
No comments:
Post a Comment