J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
You’re twisting what was said.
Its against forum rules to question the
level of faith of another person
Jim
- Status
Its against forum rules to question the
level of faith of another person
Jim
T
thistle
Guest
I’m not twisting what you said. You are twisting what I said!
C
CWBetts
Guest
I do not look to the shroud for salvation, but I have faith in its veracity. Thistle, YOU are twiisting what I said.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church requires conclusive proof or at least enough proof to eliminate reasonable doubt. Observe the canonization process. Before declaring a person a saint, the Church demands proof that cannot be answered through natural causes.
The Catholic Church is very strict about the use of reason and faith in tandem. Sola fide is not an acceptable Catholic position.
In this sense, Catholicism is a much more complete approach to mystery. It rules out natural causes using reason as far as it can, before determining that something is worthy of belief.
Fraternally,
JR
P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
Exactly. And this is how the Church differs so radically from the “Christianity” that the vast majority in this country are familiar with.The Church requires conclusive proof or at least enough proof to eliminate reasonable doubt. Observe the canonization process. Before declaring a person a saint, the Church demands proof that cannot be answered through natural causes.
The Catholic Church is very strict about the use of reason and faith in tandem. Sola fide is not an acceptable Catholic position.
In this sense, Catholicism is a much more complete approach to mystery. It rules out natural causes using reason as far as it can, before determining that something is worthy of belief.
Fraternally,
JR
I find myself find such great satisfaction in the Church’s respect for Reason and the gifts we’ve been given by such monumental intellects as Augustine (who is quoted in papers on quantum mechanics) and Aquinas to name but two.
Reason and Faith - the two pillars that lift us to God. Either is incomplete without the other.
C
CWBetts
Guest
In this i believe you are mistaken. What is your “proof” that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God? What is your “proof” that the books that make up the Canon are complete. We accept these things on faith. Likewise, on faith, I accept that the Shroud of Turin is genuine. To require mountains of proof renders our faith impotent and we become slaves to reason.The Church requires conclusive proof or at least enough proof to eliminate reasonable doubt. Observe the canonization process. Before declaring a person a saint, the Church demands proof that cannot be answered through natural causes.
The Catholic Church is very strict about the use of reason and faith in tandem. Sola fide is not an acceptable Catholic position.
In this sense, Catholicism is a much more complete approach to mystery. It rules out natural causes using reason as far as it can, before determining that something is worthy of belief.
Fraternally,
JR
P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
You are not accurately stating Catholic teaching here.
For one good & readable treatise on the use of reason regarding the canon of Scripture, you might see Steve Ray’s “Crossing the Tiber”.
Faith & reason work together, and never oppose each other. Discernment of practical matters such as whether the Shroud is real obviously requires the use of reason.
Do you believe in the authenticity of every claimed relic? Who are you to tell believers in them or in condemned apparitions their faith is misplaced? Etc?
C
CWBetts
Guest
The thing here is that I am not violating Church teaching by accepting the shroud as genuine. Not unlike the Marian apparations, we are free to believe or disbelieve as we choose. I choose to believe.
P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
You’re right about all that.
I might believe in it too if I didn’t feel such closeness to St. Pio, whose genuine stigmata included wounds in the palms of his hands in conflict with the shroud.
Outside of that, I find the physical evidence in favor of authenticity dubious at best, and far from convincing.
J
JReducation
Guest
When the canon of scripture was composed it was carefully studied by many scholars, both Jewish and Christian. The choice of books was not random. The way the books were chosen was based on reason.
The Church chose those writings that reflected her reality, her life, her faith. Because the Church was sure of her reality and her faith. Why was she so certain, because she had inherited this from the Apostles.
Only those writings that were consistent with the faith and tradition that the Church had inherited from the Apostles were chosen for the Canon of Scripture.
At the same time that the Church was composing the NT, the Rabbinical School was organizing the OT writings. When the two sets of writings were carefully examined by Catholic scholars, they found that they reflected what the Church is.
In fact, we do not accept the canon of scripture on pure faith. It is the product of scholarship that applied reason, historical consciousness, anthropology, literary criticism, dogmatic theology, linguistics, and catechesis. It was a very long process that took more than two centuries.
No, Catholics do not believe in the canon of scripture by faith, but by reason. Reason tells us that these writings reflect our faith; therefore, they must be legitimate.
Keep in mind, the Church came first, then the Bible. Even the OT was not codified until the first century. It was the Rabbis of the first century who organized the OT. Prior to that, these writings were loose books. The only set of books that had been organize was the Torah (Pentateuch).
I hope this is helpful.
Fraternally,
JR
C
CWBetts
Guest
And given that neither you nor I were actually there to witness it being done, we take it on faith that it was done correctly. There are a great many things we take on faith each day, things we do not witness, but assume are being done properly. But you are missing my point. The Church says that we may either accept or reject the Shroud as genuine. I choose to accept it. Why can you not just leave it at that? I assume you reject it. That too, is your perogative. I just seem to think that faith that requires proofs is not faith at all.When the canon of scripture was composed it was carefully studied by many scholars, both Jewish and Christian. The choice of books was not random. The way the books were chosen was based on reason.
The Church chose those writings that reflected her reality, her life, her faith. Because the Church was sure of her reality and her faith. Why was she so certain, because she had inherited this from the Apostles.
Only those writings that were consistent with the faith and tradition that the Church had inherited from the Apostles were chosen for the Canon of Scripture.
At the same time that the Church was composing the NT, the Rabbinical School was organizing the OT writings. When the two sets of writings were carefully examined by Catholic scholars, they found that they reflected what the Church is.
In fact, we do not accept the canon of scripture on pure faith. It is the product of scholarship that applied reason, historical consciousness, anthropology, literary criticism, dogmatic theology, linguistics, and catechesis. It was a very long process that took more than two centuries.
No, Catholics do not believe in the canon of scripture by faith, but by reason. Reason tells us that these writings reflect our faith; therefore, they must be legitimate.
Keep in mind, the Church came first, then the Bible. Even the OT was not codified until the first century. It was the Rabbis of the first century who organized the OT. Prior to that, these writings were loose books. The only set of books that had been organize was the Torah (Pentateuch).
I hope this is helpful.
Fraternally,
JR
P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
Does this mean you don’t believe in St. Pio’s stigmata? His stigmata are in a different location than the wounds on the shroud. How can you not believe in a man canonized by the Catholic Church?
I can’t see any way to reconcile this issue. That’s the big problem for me. And, there are several inconsistencies related to the shroud.
Definitely, it is an enigma.
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute, we’re talking about two kinds of faith here. We have faith that ancient scholars did their job correctly, because the Church teaches us that they did. Therefore, our faith is in the authority of the Church.
We have faith in God. That’s another kind of faith That faith is a virtue that is given to us as a gift of grace.
Then there is the case of the Shroud. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I’m waiting for the Church to say that it is worthy of belief. Until the Church says that, I cannot promote or reject any pious veneration of the shroud. It is really a personal matter.
This is not uncommon in the Church. There are many extraordinary occurrences on which the Chuch has not ruled. For example, the stigmata of Padre Pio. The Church has never ruled that it is a legitimate miracle or that it is not. It has ruled that Padre Pio is a saint, because of his heoric life of faith. One can choose to believe that his stigmata was a miracle or a psychological occurrence. Both hypotheses have been put on the table. The Church has not spoken to either.
The same applies to the Shroud. The Church has not spoke for or against it. She anxiously awaits the ruling of the scientific community.
As to your last statement “faith that requires proofs is not faith at all”. This is the way that the Catholic Church operates. It has always asked for proofs. If we study the cases of Bernadette, Juan Diego, the children at Fatima, the stigmata of St. Francis, the sanctity of someone before canonization and more, the Church has never accepted any of these based on blind faith. This is not the way that the Catholic Church handles these matters.
The proof can be either scientific, philosophical, theological, or simple logic, but whatever the proof is, the Church requires it before she presents something to be believed and venerated by the entire body.
I’m not making up these rules. This has been her procedure since her foundation. Even the Apostles had to present proof that Jesus had risen. That’s the reason the evangelists wrote the Gospels, as proof of Christ’s divinity and redemptive act.
Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not opposed to veneration of the shroud. I’m simply explaining why the Church does not promote it as a public veneration. I hope this clarifies my previous posts.
Fraternally,
JR
C
CWBetts
Guest
I think we are more on the same page than we thought. Until the CHurch says “No” I will believe the Shroud is a legitimate relic. Of course I put no faith in false miricles. But until the Church says otherwise, I will believe
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem here is that the stigmata of St. Francis, which to the best of my knowledge is the only stigmata that the Church has publicly put up for veneration and included in her liturgical calendar, coincides with the stigmata on the shroud according the the sermons of Bonaventure. Bonaventure did not know about the shroud. If he did, he never makes reference to it. His description of the stigmata does coincide with the shroud.
Padre Pio’s stigmata was different from that of St. Francis. This does not rule out a divine intervention. This is the nature of mystery. Why were the two stigmatas different?
Francis’ wrists, side and feet were pierced. His wrists and feet had nails that were made of dead skin. According to the description by Bonaventure, they sound like the same kind of tissue found in finger nails or calluses. But they were spikes that penetrated his wounds. They bled and they were painful. He was unable to walk or use his hands after the stigmata. Padre Pio did not bleed constantly and had use of his hands.
There is a discrepancy between the two. Also, the Church and the Franciscan Order have never made an official statement on Padre Pio’s stigmata, but on his heroic life. There are official statements on Francis stigmata and there is even a feast day on the Franciscan liturgical calendar in September marking the Stigmata of St. Francis on Sept 16. There is an entire liturgy to commemorate the event.
I’m not so sure that we can use the correlation between the stigmata on saints and the wounds on the shroud as sound evidence to question its legitimacy.
This really complicates the issue.
Hope this helps some.
Fraternally,
JR
P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
No, the Church has not made a formal ruling as to whether the stigmata of Pio was miraculous - but what is the need for such a thing?
What, exactly, would it mean to say his stigmata were a “psychological occurrence”? I don’t know what that means. If a person has a psychological occurrence that causes holes to open up through their hands and feet, AND in their side (up to the heart!), THAT IS a miracle!
So… I think the Church does not bother to issue statements or ‘rulings’ on things that are just immaterial. There are really only two possibilities for stigmata: they are self-inflicted (fraudulent) or they are miraculous. Canonizing Pio, I think, carries the implication that Pio’s stigmata were genuine - miraculous. I would believe that even if I didn’t know so much about his life and hadn’t spoken to a man who saw his wounds daily for years.
Now, I know you were not saying anything negative at all about St. Pio and I’m sorry to derail the thread a bit. I just wanted to clarify this.
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
And you are aware that even when and if the Church says that some private revelation is worthy of belief, it only means that we are free to believe or disbelieve (in charity of course.) It is not a complete “stamp of approval”.
So some believe that the Shroud is authentic and cite tests, history, etc. and some believe that it isn’t and cite history books or a discrepency of the stigmata between a Saint and the Shroud. We can all still agree on Faith in Jesus. We can all still be loyal to the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
P
Paul_Folbrecht
Guest
I was not aware of this.The problem here is that the stigmata of St. Francis, which to the best of my knowledge is the only stigmata that the Church has publicly put up for veneration and included in her liturgical calendar, coincides with the stigmata on the shroud according the the sermons of Bonaventure. Bonaventure did not know about the shroud. If he did, he never makes reference to it. His description of the stigmata does coincide with the shroud.
Padre Pio’s stigmata was different from that of St. Francis. This does not rule out a divine intervention. This is the nature of mystery. Why were the two stigmatas different?
Francis’ wrists, side and feet were pierced. His wrists and feet had nails that were made of dead skin. According to the description by Bonaventure, they sound like the same kind of tissue found in finger nails or calluses. But they were spikes that penetrated his wounds. They bled and they were painful. He was unable to walk or use his hands after the stigmata. Padre Pio did not bleed constantly and had use of his hands.
There is a discrepancy between the two. Also, the Church and the Franciscan Order have never made an official statement on Padre Pio’s stigmata, but on his heroic life. There are official statements on Francis stigmata and there is even a feast day on the Franciscan liturgical calendar in September marking the Stigmata of St. Francis on Sept 16. There is an entire liturgy to commemorate the event.
I’m not so sure that we can use the correlation between the stigmata on saints and the wounds on the shroud as sound evidence to question its legitimacy.
This really complicates the issue.
Hope this helps some.
Fraternally,
JR
Now that you tell the story again, I recall reading about Francis’ “nails”, and other details, but the fact that the wounds were on his wrists instead of hands was forgotten or not known.
Complicates the issue, indeed! Arggh. That is really a tough one indeed!!
This may keep me up tonight.
- Status