How Catholic determination any more perfect than that of evangelicals?

[Madaglan]

Dear everyone:

I am not saying that we should be completely skeptical of everything we read, but we do have to think rationally about what we receive and how we receive it. A few weeks ago I was reading Butler’s Lives of the Saints. Many of the stories seem extravagent to us today and seem very mythlike and unreal. Take for example the story of St. Dismas enountering yet letting pass by unmolstested the Holy Family as it fled towards Egypt. Many Catholic scholars in the past century have cast doubts on the authenticity of that story. For example, consider the following from the biography on Butler in his book:

The writing of his [Butler’s] Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Principal Saints–as the opus was originally titled–was a work of some 30 years. Fr. Butler read constantly–when alone, with company, when eating, when walking, in his carriage, on horseback, etc.–yet he fulfilled all his priestly duties with precision and put himself at tthe disposal of the poor and needy. His extraordinary diligence and perseverance, plus his knowledge of languages, enabled him to accomplish his huge project on the lives of the Saints…It has often been published since in other editions and abridgements–including editions edited by Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J. and Donald Attwater, who altered the work substantially by introducing frequent comments on the supposed non-historicity of many traditions on the Saints, thereby detracting from the good work Fr. Butler had done.

I don’t think that we should wholeheartedly reject straight off what the liberals have to say; rather, I think we should learn as much as about their views as possible, and then use reason and faith to discern what is true.

Looking at the liberal scholars, I honestly can’t say anything about their private moral lives. They may, for all I know, live more decent lives than many Catholics. Someone asked me to judge according to the fruit. Well, if I look at the Catholic Church of John Paul II, then I say that there are things going on inside the Church which might be considered bad fruit: decrease in vocations to the priesthood, reduced number of people who reguarily go to confession, dressing down at church, religiously mixed marriages, etc. If we are to judge according to the fruit, then what should we think of the Catholic Church today? Is the Catholic Church of John Paul II not really the Catholic Church, whereas a smaller group might be?

 

[Madaglan]

Anyhow, what I said about interpolations, the following is an example from www.newadvent.org under the listing of Josephus:

The story of Herod the Great is contained in books XV-XVII. Book XVIII contains in chapter iii the celebrated passage in which mention is made of the Redeemer in the following words:

About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call Him a man. For He was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to Himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned Him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved Him still remained faithful to Him. For on the third day He again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvellous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after Him has not ceased. Attempts have been made to refute the objections brought against this passage both for internal and external reasons, but the difficulty has not been definitively settled. The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations.

Anyhow, one last bit: concerning the centurion story. I believe it is possible for both renditions to be honest. Presently I have to go do some things, but I would imagine that a good reason is that the centurion did not speak Aramaic and needed someone to translate before Jesus. I’ll look at the passages in more detail later.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Madaglan:

Yes, thank you for your responses. I do know that many of the Reformers pointed to different Fathers and what they did or did not accept as canonical, in additional to early unofficial canons (such as the Muratorian canon I believe). I’m sure that there’s gotta be a more sophisticated evangelical approach to the issue of canon…or at least I hope so for their sakes.

The notion that Scripture seems to witness to its own authenticity is less absurd than it may seem - the idea appears to owe a great deal to Romans 8 : The Spirit witnesses with our spirit that we are sons of God; so why can’t it witness to the authenticity of the very writings it has inspired ?​

See also: Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1 section 6

I think most theological positions one doesn’t hold have more to be said for them than one might think ##

 

[RSiscoe]

Madaglen:

Someone asked me to judge according to the fruit. Well, if I look at the Catholic Church of John Paul II, then I say that there are things going on inside the Church which might be considered bad fruit: decrease in vocations to the priesthood, reduced number of people who reguarily go to confession, dressing down at church, religiously mixed marriages, etc. If we are to judge according to the fruit, then what should we think of the Catholic Church today? Is the Catholic Church of John Paul II not really the Catholic Church, whereas a smaller group might be?

Yes, the Church since Vatican II has produce bad fruit - very rotten fruit; and the reason for this is actually very clear. It is not much of a mystery. The pre-Vatican II popes warned us repeately of certain errors to be on our guard against. The errors we were warn about were unleashed after Vatican II and have led to the rotten fruits you mentioned. Hopefully we can have a very long discussion of these modern day errors, that our Popes warned us about, and which are destroying the Church.
Madglen:

Anyhow, one last bit: concerning the centurion story. I believe it is possible for both renditions to be honest. Presently I have to go do some things, but I would imagine that a good reason is that the centurion did not speak Aramaic and needed someone to translate before Jesus. I’ll look at the passages in more detail later.

After reading your earlier post, I looked at the two passages you mentioned. To me, the answer was very obvious, but I wanted to see if others would find it that obvious as well. Therefore, I asked my wife to read to the accounts and see if she could reconcile them. Low and behold, she immediately came to the exact same conclusion I did. I intended to look online to see if other have come to the same conclusion, but have been out of the office all day and have not done that yet.

I’ll wait for your response before I give my explanation of the “contradiction”.

 

[Madaglan]

Ok, here is my understanding of the centurion story. Here are the two accounts:

**

Matthew 8

1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. **

**
Luke 7
1 Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
2 And a certain centurion’s servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
4 And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
5 For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
6 Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.
8 For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
9 When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
10 And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.

**

 

[Madaglan]

From what I can gather in reading the two accounts, Matthew uses metonymy rather than strict definition. In other words, the word centurion in Matthew really means those whom the centurion sent with his request. We see similiar uses of metonymy today; for example, oftentimes we will say that **The White House **took a certain course of action. We do not mean that the White House structure itself took the course of action; but instaed that the President and his advisors took a certain course of action.

It seems fairly clear that the centurion did not come into close personal contact with Jesus, but rather was a short distance away from him, and communicated with him through those whom he had sent to Jesus. This would fit well with the centurion’s words of humility.

That’s how I reconcile the two accounts. Do you have something different in mind?

 

[RSiscoe]

That is what I thought as well. Both accounts say that a centurion came to Jesus. One version of the story says that the centurion approached Jesus. The other account tell us how he appraoched Jesus: viz: by way of the Jews whom he sent.

With that in mind there is no contradiction. The two authors simply used a different way of explaining the same event. One said that a centurion approached Jesus, and the other told us how he approached him

Now, what will a liberal do with these two accounts? First they will attempt to show that the two accounts differ one from another. Then they will claim that both cannot be true. From this they will claim that either the Scriptures contain errors, and thus are not divinely inspired, or they will claim that the original writings were inspired, but there have been “interpolation” added to the scriptures. Either way they destroy the authority of the Bible, since no one would know what was true and what was an interpolation. Then, the “scholars” will do us the favor of telling us what is true and what is not. And you can be sure that the passages that they do not like, or those that are politically incorrect, will be the “interpolations”.

All this would have been based on the fact that the liberals were not able to reconcile the two passages. And why were they not able to reconcile them? I think the reason is because they did not want to be able to reconcile them. As I said earlier, it is obvious that their will is bent on undermining the scriptures and the faith; therefore, they are willing and desirous of believing that the scriptures contradict themselves.

I was hoping you would want to discuss the reason for the bad fruits that have come to pass since Vatican II. That is probably the most important thing that could be discussed.

 

[mark_a]

mercygate:

I’m Catholic, BTW, and accept that view, but when I was a SS pre-Catholic, my view incorporated the early history of the Church as well. But I believed that once the canon was more-or-less agreed upon in the late 4th Century, the voice of the Church was no longer needed. (What WAS I thinking?)

The term pre-Catholic is pretty cool. I haven’t heard it before. Is it yours?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Quoted by RSiscoe:

I was hoping you would want to discuss the reason for the bad fruits that have come to pass since Vatican II. That is probably the most important thing that could be discussed.

I think it would be better if we started a thread on that topic. I would very much be interested in what others have to say. Unfortunately I do not have a whole lot of time at the moment, since I am doing papers for the end of the semester and preparing for final examinations. I’ll be free in about two weeks–so maybe then would be a good time

 

[RSiscoe]

Let’s try to remember to start that thread in a few weeks, because this is an important topic. I am a little busy as well, but I may start it this weekend if I have some free time.