Any Episcopalians in the house?

[boar2roar]

I have to say how nice it is to have a thread on Anglicanism continue in somewhat civil discourse, rather than spiral into heated (or not so heated) insults and have to be closed.

The historic church references are a nice bonus.

I disagree. This forum is really nice to Anglicans ( and Jews, high church Protestants like Lutherans in general). Its groups like Mormons, Muslims and evangelical types that are really met with the most hostility on this forum.

 

[GKC]

I disagree. This forum is really nice to Anglicans ( and Jews, high church Protestants like Lutherans in general). Its groups like Mormons, Muslims and evangelical types that are really met with the most hostility on this forum.

I’ve been here for something over 10 years. I’ve seen a variety of attitudes toward Anglicans, nice not being necessarily the exemplar. Of course, there are a variety of Anglicans, so sometimes the friction is intramural.

GKC

 

[boar2roar]

I’ve been here for something over 10 years. I’ve seen a variety of attitudes toward Anglicans, nice not being necessarily the exemplar. Of course, there are a variety of Anglicans, so sometimes the friction is intramural.

GKC

In the sphere of non catholic religions talked about on this forum, they are part of the groups that get better than normal treatment and respect compared to others. Many non anglicans on this forum refer to them as “basically catholics” and many people here seem to be genuinely concerned about the direction they are going (like the female bishops) in ways that only people with deep sympathies to that org would be. Also generally speaking topics like congratulating Mormons for leaving the their church (not going to Catholicism for example just leaving) are okay while threads celebrating anglicans leaving would be considered inappropriate…

 

[GKC]

In the sphere of non catholic religions talked about on this forum, they are part of the groups that get better than normal treatment and respect compared to others. Many non anglicans on this forum refer to them as “basically catholics” and many people here seem to be genuinely concerned about the direction they are going (like the female bishops) in ways that only people with deep sympathies to that org would be. Also generally speaking topics like congratulating Mormons for leaving the their church (not going to Catholicism for example just leaving) are okay while threads celebrating anglicans leaving would be considered inappropriate…

I’ve seen just such threads, particularly around the time of the Ordinariate, and at the issuance of Anglicanorum Coetibus. I’ve also seen genuine concern for the Anglican trajectory, and those suffering under it, and I’ve seen quite the opposite.

I say again, I’ve been here over 10 years. Experience. Mileage may differ.

GKC

 

[Sy_Noe]

Fantastic! For years I’ve thought on and off about attending an Episcopal service (mass?) but have been too afraid to step out of my comfort zone. But for various cultural, political, and theological reasons (I won’t go over them all here, they’ve been discussed enough!), I feel like the Episcopal church is a better fit for me. I’m not getting any younger (I’m 39) and I feel that I need to get on with it instead of living with the feeling of biting my tongue when I’m around other (increasingly zealous) Catholic peers.
So…what can I expect at an Episcopal service? Do I speak with the reverend first, or do I simply attend? Catholic masses are usually pretty large congregations and no one approaches or notices if you are new or not. Is it the same in your church?

Virgo, I’m late to the thread but just wanted you to know your story and where you are is something I can relate to. I’m older than you but for virtually my entire adult life I’ve had similar thoughts and fears and am also introverted.

TEC is thriving where I am and there are several Episcopal churches of various sizes within 5-15 miles. But I had a bit more familiarity with a particular one as I had previously corresponded with its priest and had once donated items to it’s outreach. So one morning I mustered up enough courage to drive there. I walked up to the entrance only to be greeted by 2 ladies who informed me the priest had been called away to a family emergency and they weren’t sure a replacement priest from one of the nearby parishes would be arriving in time for there to be a Mass that day. So I didn’t stay. One of the ladies asked that I come back and try another time but I haven’t yet done so. And I still have yet to worship in any church outside Roman Catholic.

Anyway just wanted to say thanks for the thread and the opportunity for all of us to fellowship and share our stories and journeys. And as others have said, God bless you in whatever you decide. Peace.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The only thing you actually need to be a member for is formal participation in church governmnt (including ordination, obviously!). In other words, Episcopalians have very open, porous boundaries,

Contarini, might though not someone also need to be a member to be married in certain parishes? I know of Episcopal priests who will only perform marriage ceremonies for members. I’ve had an Episcopal priest tell me in his and his associate rector’s case, such a stipulation was placed in their contracts by the vestry. I however also know priests in the same diocese who will officiate at marriage ceremonies for non members. And will even officiate ceremonies outside of the sanctuary.

So I suppose as you said since TEC has porous boundaries, a non member might be able to find a priest who would do so as within my area’s diocese.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yes, see post #61.

The Church founded by Jesus of Nazareth is universal. Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

With all respect, all post 61 truly proves is you believe the Catholic faith’s interpretations of the verses. Then you said in Acts 15:7-12 after much discussion Peter got up and spoke and “the whole assembly fell silent”. Yes until one reads verse 13 and sees after Peter spoke, then James spoke and said “listen to me” and gave his judgment. And then the apostles, elders and whole church decided.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The letter from Ignatius is more than 70 years after the death of Jesus and how is it verifiable that the church of Ignatius is the same one founded by Jesus? Nor can we just take the words of Acts or the gospels or other books in the Bible as all being verifiable facts about what Jesus or his immediate followers said or did. Most of what is in them has not been independently verified by numerous other non-Christian or non-“orthodox” sources. There is even considerable disagreement among historians as to who the authors of any of those books were. Most of this is part of faith and part of a tradition that was mostly cleansed of non-orthodox view points, not verifiable historical fact.

This may be one of the most insightful posts I have ever read on CAF. Most of it is not verifiable proof with certainty but indeed is rather a part of faith.

 

[Abu]

While there is incitement to disbelieve the Gospels, defined and authorized only by Christ’s Church, that effort relies on nothing more than illiteracy and confusion, and/or a desire to be rid of Christ’s commands.

No other religion has faith in a God who has taken a human nature, historically has been crucified and risen, with the testimony of many eye-witnesses.
The reality is that:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.

The writings of these facts – the Gospels – are comparable with other ancient documents from writers such as Caesar, Tacitus, Thucydides and others, they are all reliable as history.

Historically, they prove that the messenger sent from God worked many miracles to support His mission and teaching to the extent of forgiving sins. God as Truth cannot provide such power to prove falsehood, so the claims of Jesus are true, culminating in the fact of His resurrection from the dead.

So from the reliability of the Gospels as history, we now know that:

1. An infallible Church was founded by the Son of God
2. That infallible Church teaches that the Bible, as She has given us, is the inspired Word of God.

The authority for the Bible is the Church.

The historian Eusebius in his Church History, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

While there is incitement to disbelieve the Gospels, defined and authorized only by Christ’s Church, that effort relies on nothing more than illiteracy and confusion, and/or a desire to be rid of Christ’s commands.

No other religion has faith in a God who has taken a human nature, historically has been crucified and risen, with the testimony of many eye-witnesses.
The reality is that:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.

The writings of these facts – the Gospels – are comparable with other ancient documents from writers such as Caesar, Tacitus, Thucydides and others, they are all reliable as history.

Historically, they prove that the messenger sent from God worked many miracles to support His mission and teaching to the extent of forgiving sins. God as Truth cannot provide such power to prove falsehood, so the claims of Jesus are true, culminating in the fact of His resurrection from the dead.

So from the reliability of the Gospels as history, we now know that:

1. An infallible Church was founded by the Son of God
2. That infallible Church teaches that the Bible, as She has given us, is the inspired Word of God.

The authority for the Bible is the Church.

The historian Eusebius in his Church History, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

I think your fact number two would be partially, but not fully, accurate. In John 10:33 the Jews are going to stone Jesus not due to His claim to be a messenger from God, but from blaspheming by claiming to be God".

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God"

Just a clarification, but one that points to Him either being who He claims He is, or a lunatic as C.S. Lewis professes.

Sorry for going off the OP topic a bit, but I thought the clarification is important.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Contarini]

The reality is that:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.

Only the first and fourth of these are pretty much undisputed, and the “inner circle” claim is far from undisputed if it’s meant to imply that any later community reliably transmits information given by Jesus to this “inner circle.” Point 2 is pretty clear in my view, but just what this meant is the subject of a lot of debate. Point 3 is far too vague: what does “enough” mean? Facts 5 and 6 are the most open to question. The word “Church” is used only in Matthew, and the most important such passage appears to be an addition to the earlier account found in Mark, which contains no such language. Hence, there are good historical reasons (leaving faith commitments out of it) to question whether in fact Jesus did any such thing.

The writings of these facts – the Gospels – are comparable with other ancient documents from writers such as Caesar, Tacitus, Thucydides and others, they are all reliable as history.

I presume that by “comparable” you mean “comparable in reliability.” Again, that would be seriously disputed by many scholars. And furthermore, the pagan historians you list can’t just be treated as all the same in terms of reliability, and none of them should be accepted uncritically. Caesar, for instance, is open to serious question, because his “history” is political propaganda on his own behalf. Tacitus is writing moralizing history in order to make points about the condition of the Roman Empire in his own day. Thucydides, probably the most reliable of the three in most people’s estimation, is also writing with a definite agenda. No ancient scholar would accept something as true just because it’s found in one of these authors. But that’s what you need us to do for the Gospels. It just won’t fly.

So from the reliability of the Gospels as history, we now know that:

1. An infallible Church was founded by the Son of God
2. That infallible Church teaches that the Bible, as She has given us, is the inspired Word of God.

No. As I’ve explained many times, this “spiral argument” just doesn’t work. The Gospels cannot be shown, by purely historical means, to be reliable enough for the infallibility of the Church to be established. The entire argument shows naivete and ignorance about how historians actually operate. We don’t establish certain sources as “reliable” and then follow them uncritically. Our motto is “trust but verify” for everything, even the most apparently reliable source. And Matthew–the key source for your argument–is very, very far from the most reliable of ancient sources, judged simply by historical criteria.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Contarini, might though not someone also need to be a member to be married in certain parishes? I know of Episcopal priests who will only perform marriage ceremonies for members. I’ve had an Episcopal priest tell me in his and his associate rector’s case, such a stipulation was placed in their contracts by the vestry. I however also know priests in the same diocese who will officiate at marriage ceremonies for non members. And will even officiate ceremonies outside of the sanctuary.

So I suppose as you said since TEC has porous boundaries, a non member might be able to find a priest who would do so as within my area’s diocese.

Good point. Policies would vary. Generally speaking, the concern of most good Episcopal priests is not to marry people who just want a church ceremony and have no commitment to living the Christian life. Generally a refusal to marry non-members would be an expression of that concern.

The same would be true about baptizing children.

Edwin

 

[Abu]

Contarini #169
No. As I’ve explained many times, this “spiral argument” just doesn’t work.

As has been shown repeatedly to you the reality is that on the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. From that we conclude an infallible Church was founded. Then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. It reduces to the proposition that, without the existence of the Church, we could not tell if the Bible were inspired. As St Augustine said, ‘I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.’ ”

I presume that by “comparable” you mean “comparable in reliability.” Again, that would be seriously disputed by many scholars

“Scholars” claiming something else just don’t know what reality is.

The evidence for the value of Christ’s miracles rests on the reality that Jesus Himself often referenced those miracles as proof of His mission and His teaching (a few examples: Mt 11:2-5; Lk 7:20-22; Mk 2:9-11). Since God is the source of this miraculous power and being, Truth cannot provide this power to prove a falsehood, the claims of Jesus are proved true. No vague suppositions can call out a man dead for four days – Lazarus. The miracles at Lourdes are another fact attested by science.

“Seriously disputed by many scholars”? That is useless as a statement, as scholars come in all and no beliefs and intentions. Even the rationalist historian William Lecky wrote of Jesus “that it may be truly said that the simple record three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the exhortations of moralists.” History of European Morals, George Braziller, New York 1955, Vol. II, P 8-9; Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr Peter Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 123].

In reality Higher Criticism has much for which to answer. Developed through German scholars, Msgr George A Kelly writes that the “process is full of danger” as it “reads into scripture, or forces on texts, meanings which only reflect the interpreter’s theology, not his rigorous and objective research.” The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 21].

Pope Leo XIII gave the following prophetic warning in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus against the acceptance of higher-criticism and the demythologizing it employed:
“It will not throw on Scripture the light that is sought, or prove any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracles, and of everything that is outside the natural order.”(#17).

“Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wanted put into the sacred writings. Therefore all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind." Dei Verbum, 11].

But of course the Contarini scenario has been set by Brown: ‘His favorite terms for the critics of his theories were the following: “ultra-right,” “fundamentalist,” “ultra-conservative,” “right-wing vigilantes,” and “extremists.” Their opinions, he insisted, had “no scholarly respectability.” Labeling like this, which in our society creates impressions not necessarily true or valid, raised doubts in many Catholic quarters about traditional religious formulas.’
A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory, Msgr George A Kelly]
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8154

 

[SyCarl]

No. As I’ve explained many times, this “spiral argument” just doesn’t work. The Gospels cannot be shown, by purely historical means, to be reliable enough for the infallibility of the Church to be established. The entire argument shows naivete and ignorance about how historians actually operate. We don’t establish certain sources as “reliable” and then follow them uncritically. Our motto is “trust but verify” for everything, even the most apparently reliable source. And Matthew–the key source for your argument–is very, very far from the most reliable of ancient sources, judged simply by historical criteria.

Edwin

I don’t know if you would agree, but there is another problem with the spiral argument. In a large part it assumes what it is trying to prove. It supposes that the only reasonable interpretation of the Gospels is that the Church founded was to be infallible. To me this is far from clear. For example, Matthew 16:18 can be interpreted as indicating an infallible church. It could also mean that, like Israel in the Old Testament , there would always be a faithful remnant. It could also mean by the gates of hell not prevailing that Satan could not prevent the Church from entering and conquering his domain. This is in addition to the problem of reaching a consensus of what is meant by Church.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know if you would agree, but there is another problem with the spiral argument. In a large part it assumes what it is trying to prove. It supposes that the only reasonable interpretation of the Gospels is that the Church founded was to be infallible. To me this is far from clear. For example, Matthew 16:18 can be interpreted as indicating an infallible church. It could also mean that, like Israel in the Old Testament , there would always be a faithful remnant. It could also mean by the gates of hell not prevailing that Satan could not prevent the Church from entering and conquering his domain. This is in addition to the problem of reaching a consensus of what is meant by Church.

Absolutely. The spiral argument has so many fatal problems that the main difficulty responding to it is knowing where to start

It’s particularly ridiculous when used, as it routinely is, as an answer to the difficult objection that Catholicism depends ultimately on the much-reviled “private judgment”–i.e., on one’s own decision to trust one source over another or to take one interpretation rather than another.

In fact, the spiral argument continues to depend on such acts of judgment, both in terms of the judgment that the Gospels are reliable and, as you note, in terms of the judgment that a particular interpretation of the Gospels is correct.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As has been shown repeatedly to you the reality is that on the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible as history. . . .
“Scholars” claiming something else just don’t know what reality is.

I have no problem understand that this is what you are doing. The problem is that it doesn’t hold up. You have to make sweeping, unsupported claims like your last sentence, dismissing most mainstream Biblical scholarship with a wave of the hand.

That’s not a responsible way to deal with history.

The evidence for the value of Christ’s miracles rests on the reality that Jesus Himself often referenced those miracles as proof of His mission and His teaching (a few examples: Mt 11:2-5; Lk 7:20-22; Mk 2:9-11). Since God is the source of this miraculous power and being, Truth cannot provide this power to prove a falsehood, the claims of Jesus are proved true. No vague suppositions can call out a man dead for four days – Lazarus.

None of this makes any sense as an argument for the historicity of the miracles.

The miracles at Lourdes are another fact attested by science.

That’s a separate issue.

“Seriously disputed by many scholars”? That is useless as a statement, as scholars come in all and no beliefs and intentions.

Precisely. And if you were serious about basing your apologetic on a solid historical foundation, you would be able to support your position by appealing to a consensus of scholars that spans different shades of belief and non-belief. In fact you can’t do that.

Even the rationalist historian William Lecky wrote of Jesus “that it may be truly said that the simple record three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the exhortations of moralists.”

A vague acknowledgment of Jesus’ moral influence has nothing to do with the points at issue here.

In reality Higher Criticism has much for which to answer.

Oh, of course. It discredits the argument you want to make. No wonder you don’t like it

Developed through German scholars, Msgr George A Kelly writes that the “process is full of danger” as it “reads into scripture, or forces on texts, meanings which only reflect the interpreter’s theology, not his rigorous and objective research.”

Right. So a Catholic priest says that people who reach the wrong conclusions aren’t objective. And I suppose Msgr. Kelly is objective himself?

This is a joke. It’s not a serious argument. You are arguing in circles by ruling out any scholarship coming from a perspective different from your own. That means that you aren’t honestly appealing to history at all. You are appealing to faith, because you use faith as your litmus test to decide which scholars are reliable. (Plenty of Catholic scholars disagree with your claims too, but of course you will say that they are liberal heretics, so there’s no point going into that.)

Pope Leo XIII gave the following prophetic warning in his encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus . . . .

I thought we were talking about historical evidence as the basis for Catholic faith? If that is what you are doing, you can’t use Catholic faith to determine which historical arguments are valid in the first place. You are demonstrating quite nicely the fundamental dishonesty of the spiral argument. (I don’t mean that you are deliberately dishonest. An honest person may use a dishonest argument out of prejudice and naivete.)

But of course the Contarini scenario has been set by Brown: ‘His favorite terms for the critics of his theories were the following: “ultra-right,” “fundamentalist,” “ultra-conservative,” “right-wing vigilantes,” and “extremists.” Their opinions, he insisted, had “no scholarly respectability.” Labeling like this, which in our society creates impressions not necessarily true or valid, raised doubts in many Catholic quarters about traditional religious formulas.’
A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory, Msgr George A Kelly]
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8154

Actually, you are the one using the method you criticize (rightly) in Brown. Just as Brown rules out scholars more conservative than himself, so you rule out scholars whose conclusions threaten your faith. Again, that makes a joke of the spiral argument, which depends for its integrity on its claim to start from historical considerations without appealing to faith.

Brown’s language, while regrettable, is more justified than yours, inasmuch as Brown was center-right among credentialed Biblical scholars, so that the people he criticized (the only ones you allow as real scholars) do represent a relatively extreme point on the spectrum of scholarship. In other words, he’s writing off maybe the rightward 25% of the spectrum (that’s actually a generous estimate), while you’re writing off everything else. . . .

Edwin

 

[Abu]

To:
The reality is that:
Fact 1: There was a man called Jesus.
Fact 2: He claimed to be a messenger sent from God.
Fact 3: He did enough to prove that He was such a messenger.
Fact 4: Crowds followed Jesus and He had an inner circle to whom he spoke much more.
Fact 5: He commissioned His followers to continue His teaching and founded His Church.
Fact 6: Jesus affirmed that God would protect that teaching.

Contarini responded in #169:
Only the first and fourth of these are pretty much undisputed, and the “inner circle” claim is far from undisputed if it’s meant to imply that any later community reliably transmits information given by Jesus to this “inner circle.” Point 2 is pretty clear in my view, but just what this meant is the subject of a lot of debate. Point 3 is far too vague: what does “enough” mean? Facts 5 and 6 are the most open to question. The word “Church” is used only in Matthew, and the most important such passage appears to be an addition to the earlier account found in Mark, which contains no such language. Hence, there are good historical reasons (leaving faith commitments out of it) to question whether in fact Jesus did any such thing. [My underlining].

Thus does the one who claims to know more than Christ and His Church, reject the teaching of Christ through His Church.

For no less than Ecumenical Council Vatican II decreed in *Dei Verbum *#11:
“Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach (that) the truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.” [See Lesson 18. RTF Study Program - Lesson 18: The Biblical Movement (124)] [Also **CCC #107]

Vatican II added a note re the italicized sentence referring to teaching of Vatican I, Leo XIII, Pius XII, all of whom declared that there is no error in Scripture, not even scientific, nor historical.

Pius XII declared the Vatican I teaching to be a “solemn definition.”

Obviously, the Resurrection of Jesus is the key, as the existence and faith of the Catholic communities is not self-explanatory, but dependent on the fact of the spectacular historical Jesus and the fact of His Resurrection.

As these facts are considered only “interpretations” which became plausible only to a select group of His disciples after His death, the Brownians and their disciples utterly fail to explain the facts that

1. a much larger group of His disciples, who did not see the resurrected Jesus, did not immediately reject the claims of His Resurrection
2. the apostles were able to immediately constitute this Christian community as it’s leaders

“There is a limit to how much unconfirmed faith, no matter how sincere, can make people accomplish.”
[See *Reasons for Hope, “The Authenticity of the New Testament”, p 77-82, William H Marshner, Christendom College Press, 1982].

The 1964 Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission *The Historical Truth of the Gospels *in counselling exegetes and teachers of biblical studies the Commission states: “Let him always obey the Magisterium of the Church.”
[Refer: *The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 134-5, 141].

**A condemnation by Cardinal Ratzinger of Scriptural views presented as credible **
In speeches in Paris and Lyon in 1983, the cardinal referred to hypotheses held by a majority of biblical scholars that are systematically presented as established and certain:

“The real Bible has disappeared in favour of the Bible as it is thought it ought to be. The same is true of Jesus. The Jesus of the Gospels is thought to have been transformed into a Christ of faith considerably altered by the requirements of dogma. Behind this reconstruction we are supposed to find the real Jesus of the logia, or sayings, or of some other supposed source. This ‘real’ Jesus neither says nor does anything else but what we want Him to do and say….The resurrection becomes nothing more than an ‘experience’ of the disciples through which Jesus, or, at any rate, His ‘presence’, continues. Events are not subject to examination; it is rather the consciousness of the disciples and of ‘the community’ that is subjected to examination. The certitude of faith is replaced by confidence in an historical hypothesis. This way of proceeding is most irritating….It seems to be congealed within the framework of a particular intellectual world which may no longer even exist.” [See *The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Foreword by Bishop John Charles Thomas, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989].

The facts are that the 1964 Magisterial *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *from the PBC teaches concerning the Apostles:
“However there is no reason to deny the fact that the apostles, in telling their listeners about our Lord’s deeds and words, utilized the fuller understanding which they had acquired from the glorious events of Christ’s life14 and the guidance of, the Spirit of truth.15 After His resurrection Jesus Himself "interpreted to them"16 His own words and those of the Old Testament.17 In a similar manner they explained His deeds and words according to the needs of their audience.
[See www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCGOSPL.HTM]

There is no basis for becoming a Catholic unless and until one is prepared to assent to all dogma and doctrine.

 

[Mystophilus]

I have to say how nice it is to have a thread on Anglicanism continue in somewhat civil discourse, rather than spiral into heated (or not so heated) insults and have to be closed.

The historic church references are a nice bonus.

Agreed, and not just because the Reformation period is outside of my area and so I get to learn New Things.

 

[Novocastrian]

Absolutely. The spiral argument has so many fatal problems that the main difficulty responding to it is knowing where to start

It’s particularly ridiculous when used, as it routinely is, as an answer to the difficult objection that Catholicism depends ultimately on the much-reviled “private judgment”–i.e., on one’s own decision to trust one source over another or to take one interpretation rather than another.

In fact, the spiral argument continues to depend on such acts of judgment, both in terms of the judgment that the Gospels are reliable and, as you note, in terms of the judgment that a particular interpretation of the Gospels is correct.

Edwin

Or, indeed, in judging the rationality of the spiral argument itself!

 

[Contarini]

Thus does the one who claims to know more than Christ and His Church, reject the teaching of Christ through His Church.

I thought we were talking about what can be proven by historical means? Doesn’t the spiral argument require that?

You are simply demonstrating how bankrupt the spiral argument is. You don’t really mean it. It’s a hollow pretense. As soon as you are challenged you start shooting out ecumenical Councils.

This has nothing to do with Church teaching. It has to do with a bad argument, a dishonest argument, used by some apologists. (Again, this doesn’t mean that the apologists are deliberately dishonest, only that they aren’t thinking through what they are doing.)

The nature of the argument is that it claims to provide a basis for Church doctrine without relying on Church doctrine. But as you are demonstrating, this is impossible. It’s silly to try.

I agree with the Ratzinger quote you gave. The problem with historical criticism–and with the spiral argument–is indeed the claim that one can arrive at the truth about Jesus best by laying faith aside. The spiral argument claims to do so only in the early stages of an argument that will “allow” the use of Church dogma later on. But it’s a bankrupt method.

Feel free to fulminate some more. You’re making my point with every Church document you cite.

Edwin