What do you call the thinking behind this quote:

[Rick Otto]

"“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides.”
―Saint Ignatius

Hierarchy uber alles?

 

[Hieronymus]

Satanism?

 

[Rick Otto]

Satanism?

Authority defines truth.
Scary stuff.

 

[“Paisios”]

"“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides.”
―Saint Ignatius

Hierarchy uber alles?

Goodthink

(“Goodthink, a term used in the superstate of Oceania during the late 20th century, is a Newspeak word signifying a set of thoughts and beliefs that is in accordance with those established by the Party.” -

Goodthink)

 

[brinny]

Authority defines truth.
Scary stuff.

1984.

 

[JIMINZ]

"“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides.”
―Saint Ignatius

Hierarchy uber alles?

.
If you are so disposed to do so, you should also keep a sharp eye out for that ditch in your future.

 

[Strathos]

Dogma.

 

[dreadnought]

"“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides.”
―Saint Ignatius

Hierarchy uber alles?

If someone said that today, I'd suspect some facetiousness.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Authority defines truth.
Scary stuff.

Sure. Scary stuff. But...

If Truth authorizes the Authority, then it shouldn't be too much for us to understand that Authority supports and promulgates the Truth.

So, the question is: Were 'they' authorized?

 

[Rick Otto]

If someone said that today, I'd suspect some facetiousness.

Me too, except this isn't just anyone and it isn't just casual conversation.

 

[brinny]

Rick Otto said: ↑
Authority defines truth.
Scary stuff.

Sure. Scary stuff. But...

If Truth authorizes the Authority, then it shouldn't be too much for us to understand that Authority supports and promulgates the Truth.

So, the question is: Were 'they' authorized?

Read it again. (You changed it, and perhaps didn't realize it.)

Then give some thought as to why i posted my first thought on it, which was:

1984.

An example of "authority" DEFINING "truth":

 

[Rick Otto]

Sure. Scary stuff. But...

If Truth authorizes the Authority, then it shouldn't be too much for us to understand that Authority supports and promulgates the Truth.

So, the question is: Were 'they' authorized?

The assumption that authority supports truth is often a subtle way to usurp the authority of the truth, and replace it with the authority of these questionably appointed authorizers themselves. They become unquestioning and self serving. Audit their commissions.
You will find veiled conflicts of interest.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Read it again. (You changed it, and perhaps didn't realize it.)

Then give some thought as to why i posted my first thought on it, which was:

1984.

An example of "authority" DEFINING "truth":

No. There's no need to read it again, because as a Christian (which I am, and which you are), we both know that "the Truth" is the very person of Jesus Christ, Himself. And that is the beginning axiom which I'm inferring in my little argument.

So, some little tiny bit of support and promotion is to offer some minimal definitions for posterity. These definitions can still be reconsidered by future generations to some moderate extent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The assumption that authority supports truth is often a subtle way to usurp the authority of the truth, and replace it with the authority of these questionably appointed authorizers themselves. They become unquestioning and self serving. Audit their commissions.
You will find veiled conflicts of interest.

Yes, and I agree with that. Thus, that is why I left my last post with an important question, one we each have to consider for ourselves.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, and I agree with that. Thus, that is why I left my last post with an important question, one we each have to consider for ourselves.

Yes, we do. And in so doing,we must discern were they authorized by the truth or only by the authorities.

By that I simply we are individually obligated to learn the truth, what it is and how to discern it.

But wouldn't we rather be discussing celebrity gossip? XD

 

[dreadnought]

Me too, except this isn't just anyone and it isn't just casual conversation.

Even big shots make mistakes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, we do. And in so doing,we must discern were they authorized by the truth or only by the authorities.

By that I simply we are individually obligated to learn the truth, what it is and how to discern it.

But wouldn't we rather be discussing celebrity gossip? XD

I thought we were discussing celebrity gossip (i.e. that quip by St. Ignatius).

 

[brinny]

No. There's no need to read it again, because as a Christian (which I am, and which you are), we both know that "the Truth" is the very person of Jesus Christ, Himself. And that is the beginning axiom which I'm inferring in my little argument.

So, some little tiny bit of support and promotion is to offer some minimal definitions for posterity. These definitions can still be reconsidered by future generations to some moderate extent.

You may have missed the point here, in that authority, as in tyranny or any other such evil, as demonstrated in 1984, could care less about the "truth", and in fact, destroys it, and anyone who speaks it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You may have missed the point here, in that authority, as in tyranny or any other such evil, as demonstrated in 1984, could care less about the "truth", and in fact, destroys it, and anyone who speaks it.

I've read 1984, twice in fact, and I've seen the movie. Also, Sis, as I stated above to Rick Otto, I'm in agreement that we have to discern whether the teaching has really been "authorized" by God in Christ. Sometimes the things that some people have said while in the hierarchy of the Church have been false.

Anyway, maybe I'm at fault here for not making myself clear enough, but while I can agree that a statement like that of St. Ignatius can be dangerous, it also isn't a reason to throw the baby of all 'Church Tradition' out the window with the bath water like some Fundamentalist Christians tend to do.

 

[brinny]

I've read 1984, twice in fact, and I've seen the movie. Also, Sis, as I stated above to Rick Otto, I'm in agreement that we have to discern whether the teaching has really been "authorized" by God in Christ. Sometimes the things that some people have said while in the hierarchy of the Church have been false.

Anyway, maybe I'm at fault here for not making myself clear enough, but while I can agree that a statement like that of St. Ignatius can be dangerous, it also isn't a reason to throw the baby of all 'Church Tradition' out the window with the bath water like some Fundamentalist Christians tend to do.

You missed the entire point of both of my posts.