Quote:
|
Ok now in this I agree with you, since your clarification. Roman Catholicism's objective truth claim is not as damaging and narrow as fundamentalism's, but at the end of the day they're both objective truth claims. I find that Catholicism's at least has more substances, for at least they can prove succession from the Apostles, and are to credit for canonizing the Bible, and define their truth on an evolving tradition. I agree this is better then fundamentalism.
|
I disagree that they can trace their succession to the Apostles (though there are various Christian groups which make this claim, ranging from some Protestants such as Anglicans and some Lutherans, to the Orthodox to Gnostic groups.) Documentation doesn't actually go that far back. Studying the Christian scriptures themselves, there seem to have been a variety of structures. Most scholarship on the topic I've read can trace the succession of bishops to no earlier than the second century, and this is acknowledged in even my Catholic Encyclopedia. Therefore Roman Catholics -- and some other groups claiming apostolic succession, such as Anglicans -- are slowly starting to accept a more metaphorical interpretation.
On the topic of objective truth claims, I must clarify: Roman Catholicism claims to have the authority to proclaim subjective truth, basically mysteries, and in that I'd say they are correct: their community has the authority or right to proclaim any mysteries and subjective dogmas -- mythology, stories about the world and way things are -- that they want. But I don't accept that they can proclaim it for everyone, meaning even people who are not Roman Catholic. From what I am able to gather from studying the views of Roman Catholics, including clergy, there is a wide range of thought about how to interpret even the dogma that the church has this authority, and as dogmas are subjective, it could be argued that even this authority is not necessarily objective truth claim, for all dogmas are by nature subjective and open to interpretation and re-interpretation. I must admit, though, that the Pope and the Vatican seem to portray their authority as objective even if more nuanced interpretations are possible, which is the nature of dogma as they have defined it. This smacks of some intellectual dishonesty on their part, but in my opinion, the Vatican has no problem with that.
What is most flawed about Roman Catholicism in my view is not necessarily dogmas or their authority to proclaim them for their own community. If someone doesn't like the dogma, they can leave the community, after all. I think what flaws their system is the great wealth and political power of the church and how they use it. Having a monarchy (the Pope) with so much power -- deemed infallible on faith and morals -- also hampers self-correcting mechanisms more so than in democratic faiths. Also, the notion that all people should become Roman Catholics and that Roman Catholicism is the only sure way of following Jesus and thus attaining salvation is bigoted and inevitably affects how the church relates to others, including other Christians, though this is slowly changing for the better. I could deal with subjective dogmas much more easily than the structure and political corruption of the organization itself.
12-27-2010, 08:37 AM
But isn't objectivity what you strive towards? Isn't your concept of the objective scent of a snail subjective to your olfactory receptors?
Linear Mode
