[nonameiguess]

Granting it's been 30 years since I've considered myself Catholic, so speaking entirely from the perspective of a non-believer at this point, but to me, the central dilemma is say I buy that we and our universe have a thinking, feeling creator that watches events, possibly intervenes, and actually cares how we behave in a way we can translate into human language and moral directives, given all the thousands upon thousands of conflicting historical text claiming to be that, why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon?

Other commenters trying to compare to science seem to misunderstand the analogy. You don't have to accept the conclusions of Francis Bacon himself because he sort of formalized the scientific method as we know it today. Nor do we read the texts of Newton and consider that eternal canon. Science involves empirical investigation and all claims can be corroborated or contradicted by further investigation. They're probabilistic claims based on statistical analysis of the currently available known evidence and always subject to change.

If you don't think this works, then explain how AI is able to exist in the first place, because adjusting probability estimates based on statistical modeling of incoming evidence conditioned on past evidence is exactly what machine learning does.

I love Catholicism for all the reasons given elsewhere. It has produced a grand tradition of clear writers and erudite thinkers. The basic morality and orientation of man's purpose with respect to other men rings "true" to me even if it lies outside of empiricism. But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology no matter how you cut it. If God himself ever spoke to me directly, I'd have no choice but to consider that (but would also have to consider that I might be insane). No priest and no prophet, however, is ever going to convince me that they speak with the mandate of God just because they believe it very strongly themselves.

[lolinder]

> But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology no matter how you cut it.

My understanding of Catholicism comes from outside of it, but this isn't how I understand Catholic epistemology—this sounds more like Sola Scriptura, which is a Protestant doctrine and emphatically not a Catholic one.

Since I'm not a Catholic, I'm going to link out to an explanation from people who are [0]:

> The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings; she judges them more than she is judged by them.

So the epistemological problem to resolve is not why these particular documents, it's why this particular organization? Not why do I trust what's written here but not there—the answer to that is because the Church says so—but why do I trust this Church?

Not being a Catholic, I can't really answer that question, but I do think it's important to approach the Catholic question on its own terms rather than Protestant terms.

[0] https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/tradition-and-living-m...

[nyokodo]

> why should I accept what one specific council of European priests 600 years ago or whatever decided is to be considered holy canon?

Well, firstly the canon doesn't just come from the decisions of Europeans and bringing race into it is a non-sequitur. The canon of Scripture comes from the Sacred Tradition, preserved by the Church and lead by the Pope and the Bishops (who FWIW weren't and aren't just white guys), and then sealed by the authority given by Christ to the Pope and the Bishops on issues of faith and morals. The Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Pope and Bishops comes from Christ, so why should you trust the canon of Scripture? Because Jesus Christ is God and you should believe in Him and be apart of His Church because the canon comes from the Church which comes from Christ. If you don't believe in Jesus Christ or that He was God then worrying about the canon of Scripture and trying to criticize medieval ecumenical council decisions is just foolishness.

> But the core dogma of "believe specific claims of fact because they were written down in one text and not another" is bad epistemology

This is closer to Protestant dogma which tends to assert that the Church and all our beliefs come from Scripture. To slightly rephrase and expand on what I already said above, Catholic dogma is that the canon of Scripture comes from the Church not the other way around, that is to say Christ gave us the Sacred Tradition and the Apostles and their successors are what determined the canon of Scripture.

So now I've distilled a vague distrust you have in medieval and ancient sources down to a historical and empirical question. Did Jesus Christ die and rise again, and did He found a Church that has kept his Tradition alive through the centuries and alive fundamentally unchanged. These questions have been ignored and then ridiculed by empiricists but I've noticed more and more people starting to take them seriously, I suggest you do too.

[wrfrmers]

That's a lot of talking around the actual question

>that has kept his Tradition alive through the centuries and alive fundamentally unchanged

the answer to which is an emphatic, "No." Which is why Protestantism exists in the first place.

The fundamental conundrum is whether or not you believe god is operating through people who are clearly behaving in self-serving ways, as many Catholic officials have in the past. There's nothing empirical about such a question and no use becoming indignant over some taking the perfectly sentimental (if not also reasonable, though that's beside the point) stance that they simply don't trust those dudes. The appeal to being the Church which is Jesus who is God, and therefore you can't question anything a church official says, is, like... the whole point of tension.

[nyokodo]

> the answer to which is an emphatic, "No." Which is why Protestantism exists in the first place.

Early Church scholarship makes it impossible to maintain the Protestant contention that the teachings have changed in their essence, obviously vocabulary has changed. Some recommended reading on the topic that is a mix of popular and scholarly works:

* The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin

* Upon This Rock by Steve Ray

* Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett

* The Faith of the Early Fathers Volumes 1 to 3 by William Jurgens

* The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortescue

[wrfrmers]

The medium is the message, as it were. Changing vocabulary changes the essence, since the minds and souls that would provide consistency across shifting intonation aren't still here to speak/bare them, respectively.

I think you overestimate my interest in soil-testing when I'm removed enough from the scene to see the mountain for myself. I suppose it could be a mirage; that's the best you can hope for.

[achierius]

Is it a no? Many archeological finds since the reformation have shown that the early church was indeed very much alike to what the Catholic Church later claimed. What differences in doctrine or practice do you know of?

[wrfrmers]

There was a famous list that a guy once nailed to a church door. That was a few hundred years ago.