Historical Questions about the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catherine_W
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mystophilus,

You wrote:

“The writing is not imprecise, my friend: it means exactly what you are reading it to mean. Ideas date from times, just as texts do.”

You didn’t write that. You wrote: “The Marian doctrines…date from an early C2nd document…"
  1. The doctrines in question do not date from a second century document.
  2. What you wrote implies the doctrines CAME FROM the document rather than were recorded in the document.
“Since you are familiar with these terms, let me put it another way: the Protoevangelium of James is, in historical terms, the terminus a quo for the doctrines of the Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, because, as is the norm for ideology, the oldest textual reference is the earliest extant evidence.”

The starting point, in terms of textual evidence, for the Marian doctrines is always scripture. There the Marian doctrines are shown in only pale reflection, however. I agree that the PofJ is the first text outside scripture known to discuss the Marian doctrines at issue here. Those doctrines, however, do not “date from” that early second century document. To say they do implies they are only second century in origination.

“Thus, in terms of our construction of the historical record of that doctrine, it dates from that text, because we lack the evidence required to date it back any earlier.”

One may say that the historical record dates back to the Protoevangelium (when putting aside scriptural texts), but that is still very different from saying “The Marian doctrines…date from an early C2nd document…"

A historical record is not a doctrine.

If you want to continue flogging this long dead horse feel free.
 
Our Doctrines about Mary come from Mary herself, who in fact was born without sin, who in fact was a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception and also throughout her whole life, who in fact was assumed bodily into Heaven at the time of her Dormition or death, and who, in fact, prays for us continually to her Son in her God-given role as Queen of Heaven and mediatrix of all graces.
 
vladimir998 said:
What you wrote implies the doctrines CAME FROM the document rather than were recorded in the document.
Click to expand...
It would seem that we need some further definition of terms. The verb phrase “X dates from Y” is, of course, centred around that verb. Since the verb is a reference to a location within a constructed chronology, it does not necessitate the point of origin of the subject as being at that temporal location, but it does state that no location prior to that one has, as yet, been established. This lack of an earlier location is what leads to the implication of originality. Also, this is about the ‘text’, i.e., the message in writing, not about the ‘document’, i.e., the physical object of the scroll. The difference can be important.

Significantly, we can say that, at certain times, the doctrines did come from that text: when later Christians, who were not around when Mary was born, read that text and then repeated what it said, their source for the doctrine was that text. The text is the vehicle of transmission, which makes it the proximal source for those readers. Unless we can establish another source for that text’s iteration of the idea, we regard it as the most probable point of origin.
I agree that the PofJ is the first text outside scripture known to discuss the Marian doctrines at issue here. Those doctrines, however, do not “date from” that early second century document. To say they do implies they are only second century in origination.
Click to expand...
Where is there any historical support to suggest that they did not originate there? That is why we talk about doctrines dating from a given time: if we are unable to date them to any earlier time, we are unable to assert that they actually existed at any earlier time. No evidence, no claim, remember?

Sometimes, the data are very limited. In this case, because of the C1st texts which became the NT, we do not have that problem. However, our data do not include another source for these doctrines. Thus, the implication of the data is that the Protoevangelium is the source.

If you can find another source, then I will be more than happy to say, “The Marian doctrines date from source X.” In the absence of other data, I cannot responsibly alter the comment.
 
vladimir998 said:
Mystophilus,

You wrote:

“The writing is not imprecise, my friend: it means exactly what you are reading it to mean. Ideas date from times, just as texts do.”

You didn’t write that. You wrote: “The Marian doctrines…date from an early C2nd document…"
  1. The doctrines in question do not date from a second century document.
  2. What you wrote implies the doctrines CAME FROM the document rather than were recorded in the document.
“Since you are familiar with these terms, let me put it another way: the Protoevangelium of James is, in historical terms, the terminus a quo for the doctrines of the Perpetual Virginity and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, because, as is the norm for ideology, the oldest textual reference is the earliest extant evidence.”

The starting point, in terms of textual evidence, for the Marian doctrines is always scripture. There the Marian doctrines are shown in only pale reflection, however. I agree that the PofJ is the first text outside scripture known to discuss the Marian doctrines at issue here. Those doctrines, however, do not “date from” that early second century document. To say they do implies they are only second century in origination.

“Thus, in terms of our construction of the historical record of that doctrine, it dates from that text, because we lack the evidence required to date it back any earlier.”

One may say that the historical record dates back to the Protoevangelium (when putting aside scriptural texts), but that is still very different from saying “The Marian doctrines…date from an early C2nd document…"

A historical record is not a doctrine.

If you want to continue flogging this long dead horse feel free.
Click to expand...
Vladimir, why did you go all the trouble using font instead of using quote feature?

You got Mystophillus and your postings mixed up.

Is this on purpose? Sorry to ask you this, because, in the past, I have met somebody (or rather, somebodies) who uses this strategy to confuse everyone.
 
Mystophilus,
You wrote:
“It would seem that we need some further definition of terms. The verb phrase “X dates from Y” is, of course, centred around that verb. Since the verb is a reference to a location within a constructed chronology, it does not necessitate the point of origin of the subject as being at that temporal location, but it does state that no location prior to that one has, as yet, been established. This lack of an earlier location is what leads to the implication of originality. Also, this is about the ‘text’, i.e., the message in writing, not about the ‘document’, i.e., the physical object of the scroll. The difference can be important. Significantly, we can say that, at certain times, the doctrines did come from that text: when later Christians, who were not around when Mary was born, read that text and then repeated what it said, their source for the doctrine was that text. The text is the vehicle of transmission, which makes it the proximal source for those readers. Unless we can establish another source for that text’s iteration of the idea, we regard it as the most probable point of origin.”
You go on and on trying desperately to change the fact that you wrote with imprecision. Why? You keep flogging the same dead horse and to no effect whatsoever.
“Where is there any historical support to suggest that they did not originate there?”

Common sense. Are the doctrines true? If they are true then they pre-date the second century do they not?

“That is why we talk about doctrines dating from a given time: if we are unable to date them to any earlier time, we are unable to assert that they actually existed at any earlier time.”

Why are you contradicting yourself? Earlier you wrote that the doctrines dated from a second century document. You wrote: “The Marian doctrines…date from an early C2nd document…" Now you’re claiming that “we talk about doctrines dating from a given time.” Which is it?

“No evidence, no claim, remember?”

Nope. I don’t remember.

“Sometimes, the data are very limited. In this case, because of the C1st texts which became the NT, we do not have that problem. However, our data do not include another source for these doctrines. Thus, the implication of the data is that the Protoevangelium is the source.”

Not at all. The author knew the ideas before he wrote the document. To suggest that the ideas did not exist as doctrines until pen hit paper (so to speak) is ludicrous. Someone had to know them to write them down. Don’t you know your ideas BEFORE you commit them to paper? And how much more would you know Catholic doctrines since those are passed down by word of mouth and shared among the believers?

“If you can find another source, then I will be more than happy to say, “The Marian doctrines date from source X.” In the absence of other data, I cannot responsibly alter the comment.”

So you are willing to make the same mistake over and over again rather than learn? Why would anyone do that? Is that rational?
 
Francisca,

You wrote:

“Vladimir, why did you go all the trouble using font instead of using quote feature?”

It’s no trouble. I like it that way.

“You got Mystophillus and your postings mixed up.”

Mixed up? When I quote someone I use quote marks. If I quote myself, I use quote marks and say I am using quote marks.

“Is this on purpose? Sorry to ask you this, because, in the past, I have met somebody (or rather, somebodies) who uses this strategy to confuse everyone.”

I have no idea what you’re talking about. There is no strategy involved in using quote marks on my part, Francisca. I use quote marks. There is no strategy in using quote marks. To be perfectly honest, I can’t see how using quote marks could possibly be a strategy to confuse everyone or how they could be used for any other purpose other than what quote marks are used for by everyone everywhere writing in English. Who would be confused by quote marks? Everyone here knows what they are and what they mean, right?
 
Vladimir and Mystophilus,
I really need the wealth of information you two post on CAF. Please give each other the benefit of the doubt as far as what each intended, and then kiss and make up!
 
vladimir998 said:
I have no idea what you’re talking about. There is no strategy involved in using quote marks on my part, Francisca. I use quote marks.
Click to expand...
Then could you please use the quote feature, instead of quote marks? Because sometimes you quote yourself with the same quote marks.
If I quote myself, I use quote marks and say I am using quote marks.
Click to expand...
If you quote yourself using the same quote marks, eventhough you mention that it’s your quote, it is still very confusing.
 
I’ve glanced through the posts above and they seem to be very informative.

I can add that I heard a Catholic who is a native Swede, and I thought he said it was an offense punishable by death to be a Catholic in Sweden. That might be a historical thread to pull.

Also, there was oppression of women as witches in the colonies of what would become the United States. Catholics were not burning witches here, that I’ve heard of so far.

The U.S. has suffered greatly from the oppression of African Americans, Catholics, Jews, and other racial groups. This history is a matter of digging into the original news accounts and other records showing the various crimes that have been committed, even down to the level of muggings and lynchings of individuals.

This history is difficult to track down. Just recently, a former member of the KKK was tried for a murder which occurred decades ago. And, there are still active cold case files.

It seems clearly that some court case databases would be handy here.

You’ve asked so many questions. There are many threads here, and you could do some of the research here yourself, instead of imposing on others to do it for you, honestly.
 
It also seems that your husband should know where to look for the answers to these sorts of questions.

If he has a degree in history, then he should know that there’s a lot of misiinformation out there. He has a right to his opinions and prejudice as the case may be.

There’s many Church documents that may be available on-line or enumerated on-line, which he could search to get an alternative, first-hand statement of Church policy.

Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line at www.newadvent.org can be a tremendous starting point in researching these questions.

The History Channel just had a great program about the Mexican American War. If you take this program straight up, then your husband would be very embarrassed about the United States and may not want to become a U.S. citizen or might want to revise his allegiance. The conclusion of that program is that the U.S. seized about 1/2 of the country of Mexico to open its frontiers for settlement. There was an actual war and the U.S. ended up paying only about 1/2 of its original offer to Mexico for the land that makes up some or all of about 9 states.
 
Francisca,

I might eventually use the quote feature, but not now.

If I write “I wrote:” and then follow that with a comment in quotes I just don’t see how that could be confusing. Sorry, I’m not trying to be difficult.
 
missmydad,

I wasn’t aware that Mystophilus and I needed to make up. But because you have asked I will simply drop it where it stands.

There will be no kissing however! 👍 My kisses may be saved for someone else.
 
vladimir998 said:
You go on and on trying desperately to change the fact that you wrote with imprecision. Why? You keep flogging the same dead horse and to no effect whatsoever.
Click to expand...
My hope, perhaps a vain one, was that you might listen to the explanation, and consider the value of historicism. If your accusation that I was imprecise, rather than precisely non-affirmative, makes you happy, then by all means continue with it.
“Where is there any historical support to suggest that they did not originate there?”
Common sense. Are the doctrines true? If they are true then they pre-date the second century do they not?
Click to expand...
This, then, leads us into the necessary issue of epistemology. How can we know them to date from an earlier time if we lack evidence of them dating from an earlier time? If we lack evidence of them dating from an earlier time, despite an abundance of material (the NT) on Christian belief in the C1st, what common sense reason do we have to assume that they did exist from an earlier time? If we lack a common sense reason to assume that they existed from an earlier time, what common sense reason do we have to assume that they are true?

I.e., how can we know them to be true if we lack evidence, or even support, for them being true?
“That is why we talk about doctrines dating from a given time: if we are unable to date them to any earlier time, we are unable to assert that they actually existed at any earlier time.”
Why are you contradicting yourself? Earlier you wrote that the doctrines dated from a second century document. You wrote: “The Marian doctrines…date from an early C2nd document…" Now you’re claiming that “we talk about doctrines dating from a given time.” Which is it?
Click to expand...
If your problem with this is the fact that I can say, “It dates from the C2nd”, as easily as I can say, “It dates from a C2nd text”, then the basis of the ease is this: the C2nd text was created at a moment in the C2nd. At that moment, the information in the text was written down. We can refer to that event either by its chronological designation, e.g., “some time in A.D. 731”, or by the text created at the moment, e.g., “Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People”. It is then possible to say, “The usage of the A.D. and B.C. dating system dates from A.D. 731”, or, “The usage of the A.D. and B.C. dating system dates from Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People.” Particularly when ideas are involved, the usage of the text as referent is made more popular by the acknowledgement of the role which the text plays in perpetuate the idea.
“No evidence, no claim, remember?”
Nope. I don’t remember.
Click to expand...
I apologise. This is a fundamental part of history methodology: no claim about the past should be made unless there is evidence for the truth of the claim. This has been a standard of historiography for over a hundred years, dating from the work of Leopold von Ranke.
“Thus, the implication of the data is that the Protoevangelium is the source."
Not at all. The author knew the ideas before he wrote the document… And how much more would you know Catholic doctrines since those are passed down by word of mouth and shared among the believers?
Click to expand...
I am sorry; that was in reference to the discussion of the proximal source, earlier in that post. The Protoevangelium represents the most likely proximal source for the writers who perpetuated the ideas found in that text. As for the writer’s own source, none is available to us. Were it external to the writer, its identification would constitute historical support for a claim that the doctrines predated the Protoevangelium, for which I have been asking in vain.

Regarding Catholic doctrines having been passed down by word of mouth, how can we know which doctrines were so passed down, and which were not? The epistemological question appears again, leading us back to the reason for historians’ long dependence upon texts.
“If you can find another source, then I will be more than happy to say, “The Marian doctrines date from source X.” In the absence of other data, I cannot responsibly alter the comment."
So you are willing to make the same mistake over and over again rather than learn? Why would anyone do that? Is that rational?
Click to expand...
If it is a mistake to claim as true only that which can be demonstrated as true, then I am perfectly willing to repeat it ad infinitum. As for its rationality, I would have to suggest that it fulfils the definition quite thoroughly, since it is a position based entirely upon logic.
 
missmydad said:
Vladimir and Mystophilus,
I really need the wealth of information you two post on CAF. Please give each other the benefit of the doubt as far as what each intended, and then kiss and make up!
Click to expand...
I bow to your wisdom.
🙂
 
Catherine_W said:
I have some historical questions:
  1. After the protestant reformation was the killing of heretics seen as ok or supported by the Catholic Church?
  2. What exactly is the Divine right of kings, and did the Catholic Church ever grant this right to kings?
  3. Were popes aware of their infallibility from the beginning?
  4. Is there historical proof of the early Christian beliefs about papal infallibility and Marian doctrine?
(My fiancée graduate with a Bachelors degree in history, so I feel very unqualified to answer his historical questions concerning the Catholic Church, so any help would be greatly appreciated! My fiancée is an Anglican but he is learning about Catholicism and attending RCIA, but being a history major and also being told his entire life about the great necessity of the Reformation to correct the abuses in the Catholic Church, I think it is very difficult for him to be open to the Catholic Church.)

also any good book recommendations concerning historical issues concerning the Catholic Church would be great
Click to expand...
 
Reading about the history of the Church:

I came across an outstanding handbook on Church history last fall. I don’t have it handy, so I can’t supply a complete reference. Maybe later.
The book is “The Catholic Church Through The Ages” by - - Vidmar O.P. I think it is about a year old. Paperback version is $20.
The book is an easy read. You will find yourself opening it to look for one thing and find yourself continuing through the whole chapter! The author is a good story-teller and has a knack for tying an old tale onto a modern problem. For example, his explanation of how doctrines get formulated and developed is very insightful. --And he never uses the word “epistemology”!

Fr. Dale in Cincinnati
 
The book is “The Catholic Church Through The Ages”. Author is John Vidmar. Published in paperback: 2005.

Betcha lovit!

Fr. Dale in Cincinnati
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top