Radbod, Wolfram, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[PumpkinCookie]

Lately, while on long drives, I’ve been listening to a lecture series about late antiquity (~300-1000 AD/CE). During a lecture about the Carolingian conquest of what is now France and northern Germany, the professor mentioned an episode I found quite interesting. A very rough summary follows.

Sometime in the later 7th century, a bishop by the name of Wolfram (later St. Wolfram) was dispatched to Frisia which is in modern-day Netherlands. There, the king of the Frisians (Radbod) was going to convert to Catholicism when, just before baptism, he asked Wolfram if he would see his ancient ancestors in heaven one day. Wolfram replied that, no, specifically because they were not baptized they were in hell. Upon hearing this, Radbod decided that he would rather spend eternity with his ancestors, family, and friends rather than strangers and political enemies (the Franks). He refused to be baptized and banished Wolfram, much to the chagrin of the Franks (who wanted to conquer that area).

A translation of this event is available here: wyrdmeginthew.blogspot.com/2010/05/rabod-of-frisia.html

The translator quotes Wolfram’s reply to Radbod’s question about the destiny of his ancestors in the Vita Vulframni (Life of Wolfram), ch.9 as follows:

Do not allow yourself to go astray, renowned prince ; it is certain that the multitudes of his elect are at the house of God, but on the other hand, your predecessors, the leaders of the Frisian people, who passed away without the sacrament of baptism, have certainly received the sentence of damnation. However, whomever henceforth believes and is baptised, will rejoice with Christ eternally.

(emphasis is mine)

Wolfram’s statement here seems at odds with current Catholic teaching. Am I wrong about that? Is his reply reflective of what the Church teaches, or not? Can anyone harmonize this story with current Catholic teaching? Does a story like this suggest the Church has changed its teachings?

Couldn’t St. Wolfram have said something like: “…Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life…” Couldn’t he have said that Radbod’s ancestors may well be in heaven since it is reasonable to hope that all men are saved? Wouldn’t that have cleared up Radbod’s objection?

Was Bishop St. Wolfram poorly catechized? If he was, how exactly did he manage to become a bishop and saint? Did he fundamentally misunderstand the Church’s teachings and therefore blow a huge evangelization opportunity for the Church?

 

[Reepicheep]

Christ is perfectly capable of saving people who never heard of Him. Wolfram was mistaken.

 

[e_c]

PC - You are ever-zealous to find contradictions and changes in doctrine. It is a futile search. I’m still waiting for the usury thread…

First, not everyone in the Church - including saints, and yes, even popes - speak infallibly at all times. St. Wolfram could have been recorded as saying anything you like against doctrines of faith and morals.

Second, it is not necessarily a good account of what the saint actually said. There are plenty of pious stories of saints that are not so grounded… Like the Golden Legend… But here, look at the first two paragraphs of the blog post (BLOG POST!) you are quoting from:

"In the Life of Saint Wulfram, we come upon a saga of heathen resistance to a missionary, in the person of Prince (or Duke) Ráðbod of Frisia, and opposing him, the character of Saint Wulfram. Scholars have long pointed out that the chronology of these two historical figures is incompatible, and thus the saint’s biography records in altered form an encounter between a Christian missionary (or compresses into one figure countless missionaries) and a famed and by then legendary heathen leader, Ráðbod.

Whatever the provenance of the source itself, its subject matter rings of authenticity and mirrors heathen values in its descriptions of Duke Ráðbod. Moreover, the parallels to several episodes in Icelandic sagas verifies the essential validity and genuine nature of this saga that comes to us through hostile witnesses. That hostility must have been tempered with some sort of admiration for ancestors as well, for even in its Christianized form, the story has that kind of spice and panache that heathens loved, and which even their Christianized descendants still relished. So authentic is the sagaic flavor in this hagiography that Gerhard Eis, in his Jahrhunderts, aus Legenden erschlossen (Berlin, 1933, pp. 9-26), went so far as to suggest that the Life of Saint Wulfram drew on an old German poem."

Third, there is simply no contradiction here, even if we take the account at its word. The doctrine is that nobody who is outside the Church is saved - the question is what “outside” means… Can someone implicitly desire baptism? Probably. It is a long standing teaching that one who actually desires baptism is saved should he die before actually being baptized, so why should one who WOULD desire it if he KNEW of it be excluded? We can reasonably hope for their salvation. Except in this account, we are not dealing with “neutral” men, we are dealing with hardened pagans - as the very occasion of the telling of the tale proves. St. Wulfram simply makes the judgment that such men certainly did not desire and would not have been desiring baptism in any way, even implicitly.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

PC - You are ever-zealous to find contradictions and changes in doctrine. It is a futile search. I’m still waiting for the usury thread…

First, not everyone in the Church - including saints, and yes, even popes - speak infallibly at all times. St. Wolfram could have been recorded as saying anything you like against doctrines of faith and morals.

Second, it is not necessarily a good account of what the saint actually said. There are plenty of pious stories of saints that are not so grounded… Like the Golden Legend… But here, look at the first two paragraphs of the blog post (BLOG POST!) you are quoting from:

"In the Life of Saint Wulfram, we come upon a saga of heathen resistance to a missionary, in the person of Prince (or Duke) Ráðbod of Frisia, and opposing him, the character of Saint Wulfram. Scholars have long pointed out that the chronology of these two historical figures is incompatible, and thus the saint’s biography records in altered form an encounter between a Christian missionary (or compresses into one figure countless missionaries) and a famed and by then legendary heathen leader, Ráðbod.

Whatever the provenance of the source itself, its subject matter rings of authenticity and mirrors heathen values in its descriptions of Duke Ráðbod. Moreover, the parallels to several episodes in Icelandic sagas verifies the essential validity and genuine nature of this saga that comes to us through hostile witnesses. That hostility must have been tempered with some sort of admiration for ancestors as well, for even in its Christianized form, the story has that kind of spice and panache that heathens loved, and which even their Christianized descendants still relished. So authentic is the sagaic flavor in this hagiography that Gerhard Eis, in his Jahrhunderts, aus Legenden erschlossen (Berlin, 1933, pp. 9-26), went so far as to suggest that the Life of Saint Wulfram drew on an old German poem."

Third, there is simply no contradiction here, even if we take the account at its word. The doctrine is that nobody who is outside the Church is saved - the question is what “outside” means… Can someone implicitly desire baptism? Probably. It is a long standing teaching that one who actually desires baptism is saved should he die before actually being baptized, so why should one who WOULD desire it if he KNEW of it be excluded? We can reasonably hope for their salvation. Except in this account, we are not dealing with “neutral” men, we are dealing with hardened pagans - as the very occasion of the telling of the tale proves. St. Wulfram simply makes the judgment that such men certainly did not desire and would not have been desiring baptism in any way, even implicitly.

1. I’ll get to the usury thread eventually.
2. You raise suspicion about the accuracy of these accounts. I agree with your suspicion, but how can you simultaneously affirm that the Church has never erred in conferring sainthood on a person? If you believe these ancient accounts are mythical or at least historically suspect, why would you affirm that Wolfram is a saint at all? How can we accept the pantheon of saints when we can’t be sure whether they really existed or performed miracles at all?
3. No contradiction? The poster directly above disagrees. Why is that? Which one of you is poorly catechized, and how can I know?

There are contradictions all over Catholic teaching. I reached into the distant past to pull out this silly example because I find that it is sometimes easier to see what is going on if we change time and place radically. (Also I found the names amusing). The contradictions are blatant, and although the Jesuitical reasoning and general historical ignorance of contemporary people covers a multitude of sins, free exchange of information over the internet provides those who want to learn a plethora of opportunity.

I get it. You have “skin in the game.” You’re studying to be a priest right? Constantly surrounded by those who agree with you and financially dependent upon the organization you are defending, is that correct? I don’t envy your position. How can you possibly engage in free intellectual inquiry when it would be biting the hands that feed you? With every passing day your life becomes more dependent upon and intertwined with the institutional Church, and any hope of honest questioning into these things grows ever more faint. Is that not fair? Isn’t your position more like that of a salesman than a philosopher? I’m not dealing with the bias of mere loyalty here: your ideological commitments are the foundation of your bodily existence. Change your mind, and all of a sudden you need to find a different job, a place to live, and new clothes. It would take courage of unreasonable magnitude for you to investigate these things disinterestedly and go where the evidence and reason lead, would it not?

 

[Gorgias]

1. No contradiction? The poster directly above disagrees. Why is that? Which one of you is poorly catechized, and how can I know?

Nah, I don’t think there’s contradiction, either. Reepicheep is making some presumptions, as well as taking your story at face value. Moreover, if the story were true, and if Wolfram knew that Radbod’s ancestors knew the truth of the Catholic faith but refused to convert… then Wolfram would be correct in his evaluation, as well as being in line with Catholic teaching.

Lots of “if’s” there, and lots of conditions… but yeah – it’s not something that’s necessarily in conflict with Catholic teaching.

There are contradictions all over Catholic teaching.

Says you. Over and over again, against the objections of Catholics here. We disagree, and you refuse to assent to the case we make. It’s all good… perhaps one day, you’ll stop kicking against the goads…

The contradictions are blatant, and although the Jesuitical reasoning and general historical ignorance of contemporary people covers a multitude of sins, free exchange of information over the internet provides those who want to learn a plethora of opportunity.

So, basically, your case is this: we’re dumb, you know better, and the Internet is always right. Got it.

You have “skin in the game.” You’re studying to be a priest right? Constantly surrounded by those who agree with you and financially dependent upon the organization you are defending, is that correct? I don’t envy your position. How can you possibly engage in free intellectual inquiry when it would be biting the hands that feed you?

Ever hear of the ad hominem fallacy “argumentum ergo decedo”? You do a pretty good job of demonstrating it here. Nice try. It’s a fallacy because it implies that no one in the group can make a reasonable argument. By the same token, it means that your arguments against the Church should be disregarded because you’re not a Catholic. See how silly and unfair that is?

It would take courage of unreasonable magnitude for you to investigate these things disinterestedly and go where the evidence and reason lead, would it not?

Your assertion here is really, really amusing… since that’s what people have been telling you around here! Physician, heal thyself!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So, basically, your case is this: we’re dumb, you know better, and the Internet is always right. Got it.

Not dumb, no. Ignorant of history, yes. I do know far more about certain aspects of history than most people I’ve met, yes. The internet provides a safe space for people to explore alternative explanations and information that may or may not have been withheld from them, away from power structures and authority figures who would punish them for “doubt.”

Just this past Sunday, the priest droned on and on about the “original Hebrew” in the New Testament. There was no protest, no feedback (of course, the church is not a forum for the pursuit of truth, but a one-man show).

The hundreds of people just uncritically accepted the priest’s opinions about the true meaning of the Hebrew word for “hate” in the gospel reading last week. Except, the gospels weren’t written in Hebrew…

Now, you and I both know that of course. It’s incredibly basic Bible 101 stuff. But, I think the vast majority of every day Christians would simply go along with what the priest said because they don’t know any better.

That’s just a tiny example of the depth of ignorance we’re talking about in the Church.

Did you know anything about this exchange between Radbod and Wolfram prior to today?

Did you know Charlemagne massacred 4,500 people simply because they refused to convert to Catholicism? The same man, crowned “Holy Roman Emperor” by Pope Leo III in a church on Christmas day was an outright war criminal and no better than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

Why isn’t history part of the religious education curriculum? Why isn’t history part of RCIA? Is the Church embarrassed by her heritage? Why do contemporary Catholic apologists shrink from discussing the doctrinal disputes of the 4th century? Why did the institutional church burn or otherwise censor the works of those who disagreed with the current party line at the time?

Ever hear of the ad hominem fallacy “argumentum ergo decedo”? You do a pretty good job of demonstrating it here. Nice try. It’s a fallacy because it implies that no one in the group can make a reasonable argument. By the same token, it means that your arguments against the Church should be disregarded because you’re not a Catholic. See how silly and unfair that is?

Your assertion here is really, really amusing… since that’s what people have been telling you around here! Physician, heal thyself!

1. If I were to reconvert to Catholicism today, not a single thing about my life would change. I would do the same work, live in the same house with the same family, and continue to go to mass every week and continue to be bored to death by intolerably ignorant homilies and empty rituals. I have no reason not to be a Catholic, other than I don’t think it is true.
2. If professional apologists who’s livelihood directly depends on their intellectual commitments decided to leave Catholicism today, their lives would be a huge mess. They have every reason to stay Catholic, and ignore any suspicion that it isn’t true.

Priests live off of solicited donations and the only way that gravy train keeps moving down the track is if they do not change their minds. Though, I suppose some priests simply put on a good show and collect donations from gullible people while secretly living a life of hedonism (Corapi anyone?)

I am free to change my mind at any time based on evidence and reason. Nothing is “riding” on my decision. I am not a professional stoic/deist LOL. No one cares what I think and it would be no scandal for me to take up Roman Catholicism again. I don’t sell apologetic books. I don’t go on speaking tours, selling my beliefs. I have no “skin in the game” at all.

But a priest is shackled. His life depends on affirming the current party line. He cannot escape without losing his home, his identity, his income, and his community. Everything is riding on his decision. How can he be objective? He’s a dedicated salesman for the oldest corporation in the western world.

Sometimes salesmen make reasonable arguments. Sometimes they offer products or services that are truly superior and truly worth buying. I’m not saying it is impossible for a priest or professional apologist to make a reasonable argument, or that it is impossible for the current version of Catholicism to be the truth about the universe, but rather that we have every reason to be suspicious of the objectivity of a person who is PAID to be a Catholic. It’s precisely the same suspicion we hold for salesmen of all kinds.

 

[o_mlly]

… Was Bishop St. Wolfram poorly catechized? If he was, how exactly did he manage to become a bishop and saint? …

The canonization process does not make a saint but merely affirms one as a saint.

This sainthood certification does not imply the person led an exemplary life or was infallibly correct in all their utterances or writings but only that at the time of their death were in a state of sanctifying grace.

In the early Church, saints were proclaimed by the local ordinary. Before the Church authority rightfully asserted itself and invented a process, sainthood was declared simply by acclamation of the local community.

Only saints proclaimed by the pope are infallibly so. I do not know what method St. Wofram attained sainthood status nor do I know if he was poorly catechized.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The canonization process does not make a saint but merely affirms one as a saint.

This sainthood certification does not imply the person led an exemplary life or was infallibly correct in all their utterances or writings but only that at the time of their death were in a state of sanctifying grace.

In the early Church, saints were proclaimed by the local ordinary. Before the Church authority rightfully asserted itself and invented a process, sainthood was declared simply by acclamation of the local community.

Only saints proclaimed by the pope are infallibly so. I do not know what method St. Wofram attained sainthood status nor do I know if he was poorly catechized.

Now THIS is interesting!

1. Right, I knew that.
2. How could a bishop/pope/church know whether Wolfram in the 7th century died in a state of grace if we are suspicious about whether or not he even did any of the things attributed to him?
3. So, it is entirely possible that huge numbers of saints held by the Church are not actually saints since they weren’t declared so infallibly by the Pope? Are people then directing their prayers to people who 1) never existed at all or 2) are in purgatory or 3) in hell? Isn’t that kind of silly? Are large festivals and rituals being performed for people who are not actually saints? Why does the Church allow this to continue?

 

[o_mlly]

Now THIS is interesting!

1. Right, I knew that.

Of course you did.

1. How could a bishop/pope/church know whether Wolfram in the 7th century died in a state of grace if we are suspicious about whether or not he even did any of the things attributed to him?

St. Wolfram’s sainthood according to catholicsaints.info/saint-wulfram-of-sens/ was pre-congregation, that is without a papal decree. His status as a saint is probable but not infallible.

1. So, it is entirely possible that huge numbers of saints held by the Church are not actually saints since they weren’t declared so infallibly by the Pope?

Possible but arguably not probable. The ordinary or the local community (sensus fidei) acclamation of sainthood in the early Church is deemed to be the work of the Holy Spirit. To wit:
In the first five centuries, the faith of the Church as a whole proved decisive in determining the canon of Scripture and in defining major doctrines concerning, for example, the divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity and divine motherhood of Mary, and the veneration and invocation of the saints. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html#2._The_development_of_the_idea,_and_its_place_in_the_history_of_the_Church

3)Are people then directing their prayers to people who 1) never existed at all or 2) are in purgatory or 3) in hell? Isn’t that kind of silly? Are large festivals and rituals being performed for people who are not actually saints? Why does the Church allow this to continue?

Prayers to saints are requests for advocacy, that is intercession with God for specific causes. Assuming the addressed advocate does not have such powers of intercession, do you think God dismisses the prayer as silly? Prayer is always for the one who prays and in very few exceptions is our prayer ever perfect, that is w/o some defect. If God decided all defective prayers are silly and dismissed them as such then we are all doomed.

 

[e_c]

1. I’ll get to the usury thread eventually.
2. You raise suspicion about the accuracy of these accounts. I agree with your suspicion, but how can you simultaneously affirm that the Church has never erred in conferring sainthood on a person? If you believe these ancient accounts are mythical or at least historically suspect, why would you affirm that Wolfram is a saint at all? How can we accept the pantheon of saints when we can’t be sure whether they really existed or performed miracles at all?
3. No contradiction? The poster directly above disagrees. Why is that? Which one of you is poorly catechized, and how can I know?

**4. **There are contradictions all over Catholic teaching. I reached into the distant past to pull out this silly example because I find that it is sometimes easier to see what is going on if we change time and place radically. (Also I found the names amusing). The contradictions are blatant, and although the Jesuitical reasoning and general historical ignorance of contemporary people covers a multitude of sins, free exchange of information over the internet provides those who want to learn a plethora of opportunity.

**5. **I get it. You have “skin in the game.” You’re studying to be a priest right? Constantly surrounded by those who agree with you and financially dependent upon the organization you are defending, is that correct? I don’t envy your position. How can you possibly engage in free intellectual inquiry when it would be biting the hands that feed you? With every passing day your life becomes more dependent upon and intertwined with the institutional Church, and any hope of honest questioning into these things grows ever more faint. Is that not fair? Isn’t your position more like that of a salesman than a philosopher? I’m not dealing with the bias of mere loyalty here: your ideological commitments are the foundation of your bodily existence. Change your mind, and all of a sudden you need to find a different job, a place to live, and new clothes. It would take courage of unreasonable magnitude for you to investigate these things disinterestedly and go where the evidence and reason lead, would it not?

1. Ok.
2. Others have explained.
3. If you think there is a contradiction after the explanation I gave, I don’t understand what you mean. What you need to do is show that the institutional Church defined something which it later undefined or contradicted in a new definition. That is just not what is occurring here at all, and there are not even the problems you think there are below that. You are not making enough distinctions.
4. If you say so.
5. Wrong on all accounts bud (though most people around me generally believe what I do, as is the case with 99% of human beings). I won’t get into my personal life, but I’ll tell you that a quick gander at recent American Church history will show you a swath of men leaving ministry and then the Church as well.

Did you know anything about this exchange between Radbod and Wolfram prior to today?

Did you know Charlemagne massacred 4,500 people simply because they refused to convert to Catholicism? The same man, crowned “Holy Roman Emperor” by Pope Leo III in a church on Christmas day was an outright war criminal and no better than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Verden

Why isn’t history part of the religious education curriculum? Why isn’t history part of RCIA? Is the Church embarrassed by her heritage? Why do contemporary Catholic apologists shrink from discussing the doctrinal disputes of the 4th century? Why did the institutional church burn or otherwise censor the works of those who disagreed with the current party line at the time?

What planet do you live on? Why don’t RCIA classes dive into minutiae of Church history and hagiography? Are you serious?

As for burning - well, that’s pretty obvious. Use your head. We think this is the truth, that’s not the truth, that’s dangerous for faith and morals, so we destroy it. Not so difficult.

1. How could a bishop/pope/church know whether Wolfram in the 7th century died in a state of grace if we are suspicious about whether or not he even did any of the things attributed to him?

1. So, it is entirely possible that huge numbers of saints held by the Church are not actually saints since they weren’t declared so infallibly by the Pope? Are people then directing their prayers to people who 1) never existed at all or 2) are in purgatory or 3) in hell? Isn’t that kind of silly? Are large festivals and rituals being performed for people who are not actually saints? Why does the Church allow this to continue?

1. Because people knew him… Not so difficult to understand.
2. Something like that. But mainly the ones you’ve never heard of.

 

[Gorgias]

Not dumb, no. Ignorant of history, yes. I do know far more about certain aspects of history than most people I’ve met, yes.

Just this past Sunday, the priest droned on and on about the “original Hebrew” in the New Testament. There was no protest, no feedback (of course, the church is not a forum for the pursuit of truth, but a one-man show).

The hundreds of people just uncritically accepted the priest’s opinions about the true meaning of the Hebrew word for “hate” in the gospel reading last week. Except, the gospels weren’t written in Hebrew…

OK… take a deep breath, Pumpkin. Time to put your assertion about “knowing more about history than most” to the test. Get ready… you’re not gonna like what you hear.

PC, Jesus didn’t preach that discourse in Greek. He would’ve spoken Aramaic. Regardless of his proficiency in Greek, that wouldn’t have been the language he’d have used at a dinner party in the house of a Pharisee. So, when we read the passage in Luke 14 that talks about “hating”, we need to remember that Jesus really would have spoken that discourse in a language that wasn’t Greek. So, the priest was validly discussing the context of the passage in the “original” language in which it was spoken. He was “droning on and on” appropriately and accurately. But hey… that’s incredibly basic Bible 101 stuff. And it seems you’re blissfully unaware of it.

In a way, it’s sad that not only are you unaware of the ignorance of your statements, but also, that you’re attempting to impute that ignorance to the guy who apparently knows more than you. :sad_yes:

That’s just a tiny example of the depth of ignorance we’re talking about in the Church.

Apparently not just in the Church.

Did you know Charlemagne massacred 4,500 people simply because they refused to convert to Catholicism?

Or, perhaps, because those Saxons rebelled. But hey – it sounds more impressive when you cast the narrative as a Catholic massacre. Nice try.

Why isn’t history part of the religious education curriculum? Why isn’t history part of RCIA?

Why isn’t math part of RCIA? Why isn’t math part of the religious ed curriculum? Oh, yeah… that’s right – it’s taught elsewhere. C’mon, PC… be reasonable.

Why do contemporary Catholic apologists shrink from discussing the doctrinal disputes of the 4th century?

They do? That’s not my experience.

Why did the institutional church burn or otherwise censor the works of those who disagreed with the current party line at the time?

Because, for those who aren’t anachronistic in their analyses, they realize that this was the way people acted in those days. Today, not so much. Back then, standard operating procedure. This isn’t a ‘Catholic’ thing, it’s a ‘human’ thing.

If I were to reconvert to Catholicism today, not a single thing about my life would change. I would do the same work, live in the same house with the same family, and continue to go to mass every week and continue to be bored to death by intolerably ignorant homilies and empty rituals.

As I’ve demonstrated, the locus of ignorance seems not to be the homily. The rituals, too, aren’t ‘empty’, although perhaps your understanding of them stands to be more full.

If professional apologists who’s livelihood directly depends on their intellectual commitments decided to leave Catholicism today, their lives would be a huge mess. They have every reason to stay Catholic, and ignore any suspicion that it isn’t true.

Again, the same tired old ad hominem attack. One of these days, perhaps you’ll realize the logical fallacy you’re embracing. ‘Ignorance’, indeed…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

OK… take a deep breath, Pumpkin. Time to put your assertion about “knowing more about history than most” to the test. Get ready… you’re not gonna like what you hear. …[CUT]…But hey… that’s incredibly basic Bible 101 stuff. And it seems you’re blissfully unaware of it.

In a way, it’s sad that not only are you unaware of the ignorance of your statements, but also, that you’re attempting to impute that ignorance to the guy who apparently knows more than you. :sad_yes:

There are two false assumptions here. First, you assume I was unaware that Jews of this period spoke Aramaic as an everyday language. Second, you assume that you somehow know what Jesus really said.

You actually have no idea what Jesus really said, and neither does anyone else. All we have are the documents in Greek. Now, you can go ahead and assume that the Greek accounts produced decades after the fact are faithful renderings of the sense of what Jesus intended to communicate or actually did communicate, but that is an assumption based on faith. I make no assumption, and merely examine the documents themselves while leaving open the possibility that they are reflections of a community’s faith commitments rather than accurate portrayals of the facts.

Regardless, Aramaic is not Hebrew and the priest’s entire homily was based on a factual error, of which I can only hope he was merely unaware. The Greek word he meant to refer to actually DOES mean “hate” in the active sense. I am aware of the tradition of Semitic hyperbole, nevertheless the priest’s point wasn’t based on an understanding of that tradition. Rather, it was based upon a misunderstanding of the gospel texts themselves.

Or, perhaps, because those Saxons rebelled. But hey – it sounds more impressive when you cast the narrative as a Catholic massacre. Nice try.

By supposing Charlemagne wasn’t such a bad guy after all, and that this massacre wasn’t really such an atrocity, you are in the company of Goebbels and Hitler, who tried to rehabilitate Charlemagne’s image via propaganda in an attempt to arouse pro-Christian and pro-Germanic sentiment in Nazi Germany.

Why isn’t math part of RCIA? Why isn’t math part of the religious ed curriculum? Oh, yeah… that’s right – it’s taught elsewhere. C’mon, PC… be reasonable.

The truths of mathematics aren’t directly relevant to whether or not Christianity is true (other than whether or not 3 can also be 1 LOL). The truths of history are directly relevant to many claims made by Christians. Christians should know who called the early ecumenical councils, and who made final decisions about doctrine (hint: not popes, not bishops, not saints). Christians should know about the long history of disagreement about fundamental doctrines, and the violent suppression of dissent. Should truth need violence to silence her competitors? Shouldn’t truth shine forth, obviously superior to nonsense and vicious speculation?

Because, for those who aren’t anachronistic in their analyses, they realize that this was the way people acted in those days. Today, not so much. Back then, standard operating procedure. This isn’t a ‘Catholic’ thing, it’s a ‘human’ thing.

Wrong. Religiously speaking, the Greco-Roman culture had no concept of “orthodoxy” and allowed anyone to preach nearly anything (as long as it didn’t advocate political treason/sedition). Did Platonists murder other philosophers and then burn their works? Did Euclid issue proclamations condemning all other forms of mathematics and demand that anyone holding them be tortured and murdered? Was stoicism forcibly suppressed by the cynics? Of course not! Now, yes, the ancient world of course did not have a concept of human rights like free speech or freedom of religion. That’s not what anyone should expect. However, if the factions of Catholicism who won the theological battles of the 4th century were truly confident in the truth of their claims, why should they use so much violence to silence their challengers? Couldn’t they use rational argumentation, or demonstrate their case from documented history? To me, the violence betrays ignorance and fanaticism.

Again, the same tired old ad hominem attack. One of these days, perhaps you’ll realize the logical fallacy you’re embracing. ‘Ignorance’, indeed…

What is fallacious about my claim here?

1. Priests/professional apologists depend on their faith commitments for their daily bread.
2. If priests/professional apologists change their minds, they lose their daily bread.
3. Everyone has a strong incentive not to lose their daily bread.
4. We should consider the bias of those whose livelihoods depend on their commitment to their faith-based opinions.

My daily bread does not depend on my faith commitments or opinions about theology at all. I am free to change my mind with no consequences.

When arguing with others, I do my best to find counter examples or pieces of evidence supporting my opponent’s position. I learn best this way. Have you ever heard of Michael Coren? Michael Coren made a lot of money off of Catholics. He wrote silly books like “Why Catholics Are Right.” He toured all over the place and received fees for his opinions about Catholicism.

Astoundingly, he changed his mind about some moral and theological ideas and had the courage to leave the Catholic Church. He is a counter-example here. Similarly, the priests and nuns who left the church in droves after Vatican 2 can be considered counter-examples. Can you think of more? Does the existence of these counter examples mean that my argument is intrinsically fallacious, or are they exceptions to the general rule?

 

[BellsMom]

Hi Pumpkin - Can you please direct me to where I can find the series you’re listening to? Is it connected to the blog you linked?

Gracias

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Hi Pumpkin - Can you please direct me to where I can find the series you’re listening to? Is it connected to the blog you linked?

Gracias

No, not connected to the blog. I linked to that blog because it contained the original text and an English translation of the relevant passage. The course I mentioned is this:

thegreatcourses.com/courses/early-middle-ages.html

Possibly the most entertaining “Great Courses” series that I’ve come across is this one:

thegreatcourses.com/courses/famous-romans.html

Professor Fears’ dramatic delivery and gripping pace make the long drives quite enjoyable.

 

[goout]

Christ is perfectly capable of saving people who never heard of Him. Wolfram was mistaken.

If the statements attributed to him are taken very literally, and we assume he has God’s knowledge of the disposition of these souls, then he is right on.
He probably falls short on the latter count so we would say be misspoke, according to the fullest understanding of the faith, which we have today but he did not have at that time. So yea he was wrong, sort of…

 

[e_c]

Yikes… An ad hitleram!

Stopped really reading after that one… Though not enough to miss the return to the appeal to one’s beliefs as evidence of an inability to think fairly… Since none of us here are being paid to argue with PC!

This is a very bad case for a supposed contradiction, for the reasons already explained.

Peace…

 

[goout]

And i seems to me that a seeker of good will can find reams and reams of explanation about how to handle extra ecclasium non salus, and endless explanations of how understanding of Catholic doctrine develops.
I’ m surprised that anyone would be apoplectic about it.

 

[Gorgias]

There are two false assumptions here. First, you assume I was unaware that Jews of this period spoke Aramaic as an everyday language.

You demonstrated no such knowledge – in fact, you raised the issue of ‘Greek’ vs ‘Hebrew’ as the only salient question. In fact, the issue is more complex: ‘original language as spoken’ vs ‘original language in writing’, and the complexities of meaning in that translation. Since you only railed against the reference to ‘Hebrew’ instead of ‘Greek’, we can only understand that to mean that, at the time you were forming your objection, you were unaware of the true issue.

Second, you assume that you somehow know what Jesus really said.

That doesn’t follow at all. As I’ve mentioned above, the question is really how we map Jesus’ original meaning (as expressed verbally) through the meaning captured in the translation to Greek, and then onward to other target languages.

You actually have no idea what Jesus really said, and neither does anyone else. All we have are the documents in Greek.

And from those documents, and from a knowledge of Aramaic, we can make reasonable conclusions as to what the original words and meanings were. You see, that’s precisely what a scholar of ancient languages does.

Now, you can go ahead and assume that the Greek accounts produced decades after the fact are faithful renderings of the sense of what Jesus intended to communicate or actually did communicate, but that is an assumption based on faith.

Not at all. Bart Ehrman might pat you on the back for that assertion, but it’s a really weak one. After all, I might not remember the recipe for apple pie faithfully from memory, but in terms of quotes held to be critically important, I could quote the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independence for you word-for-word. You see, those things which we hold sacrosanct, we devote greater attention to, and therefore, we can have a relatively greater degree of confidence that – at the time of their recording in written form – we have a good rendering. It has nothing at all to do with faith, but with human nature.

I make no assumption, and merely examine the documents themselves while leaving open the possibility that they are reflections of a community’s faith commitments rather than accurate portrayals of the facts.

That’s a completely different argument, and it moves in a different vector entirely. You’re arguing for “Gospel as teaching document” as opposed to “Gospel as historical rendering.” There’s an argument to be made there, but that’s not the argument you’re making here.

Regardless, Aramaic is not Hebrew and the priest’s entire homily was based on a factual error, of which I can only hope he was merely unaware. The Greek word he meant to refer to actually DOES mean “hate” in the active sense. I am aware of the tradition of Semitic hyperbole, nevertheless the priest’s point wasn’t based on an understanding of that tradition. Rather, it was based upon a misunderstanding of the gospel texts themselves.

Or, perhaps, he meant to say ‘Aramaic’ and instead said ‘Hebrew’. Or, perhaps, he didn’t feel like getting into a discussion that would have necessarily gone down the rabbit hole of explaining how Hebrews came to use Aramaic as their everyday language. Or, perhaps he really was trying to convey the notion of ‘Semitic hyperbole’, but in language in which he felt would best convey that idea to his audience.

By supposing Charlemagne wasn’t such a bad guy after all, and that this massacre wasn’t really such an atrocity, you are in the company of Goebbels and Hitler, who tried to rehabilitate Charlemagne’s image via propaganda in an attempt to arouse pro-Christian and pro-Germanic sentiment in Nazi Germany.

Godwin’s law. You lose the debate.

(But, since I’m taking you at face value, I think you’re misconstruing my statement. I’m not calling Charlemagne a paragon of virtue – I’m just saying that you’re spinning the historical event in a context that’s invalid. The man was quelling a rebellion against him. Was the ‘massacre’ ill-advised? Perhaps. Was it, in fact, a ‘massacre’ at all? That tends to depend on who’s telling the story. Was it a religiously-motivated massacre? That’s the spin you’re putting on it which, I contend, is inaccurate.)

The truths of mathematics aren’t directly relevant to whether or not Christianity is true (other than whether or not 3 can also be 1 LOL). The truths of history are directly relevant to many claims made by Christians.

But, they’re a different subject, and should be taught in a different context. Do students who are learning calculus need to know the sordid details of the Leibniz-Newton controversy? Of course not. However, later on, knowledge of the historical background rounds out the knowledge of calculus.

 

[Gorgias]

(continued…)

Christians should know who called the early ecumenical councils, and who made final decisions about doctrine (hint: not popes, not bishops, not saints).

LOL – if you’re trying to allude that Constantine was the final arbiter of Christian doctrine, then you’ll need to change your context: you’re now in the realm of science fiction, not history…

Christians should know about the long history of disagreement about fundamental doctrines, and the violent suppression of dissent. Should truth need violence to silence her competitors? Shouldn’t truth shine forth, obviously superior to nonsense and vicious speculation?

It should. Sometimes, though, ‘nonsense’ and ‘vicious speculation’ is what humans are better at. Sometimes, throughout the course of history, ‘violent suppression’ was the normal way of doing things. Applying modern mores to ancient contexts is called ‘anachronism’. It’s not your friend. :nope:

Wrong. Religiously speaking, the Greco-Roman culture had no concept of “orthodoxy” and allowed anyone to preach nearly anything (as long as it didn’t advocate political treason/sedition).

Psst… here’s your clue-by-four for the day: throughout history, whenever someone taught something that ticked off someone else, do you know what the accusation of the offended person was, against the ‘offender’? Yep, you got it! ‘Treason’ or ‘sedition’ or ‘corrupting the morals of youths.’ If “the Greco-Roman culture had no concept of ‘orthodoxy’”, then you need to come up with a really, really creative explanation of why Socrates’ last happy hour included a hemlock cocktail…

if the factions of Catholicism who won the theological battles of the 4th century were truly confident in the truth of their claims, why should they use so much violence to silence their challengers? Couldn’t they use rational argumentation, or demonstrate their case from documented history? To me, the violence betrays ignorance and fanaticism.

The violence only betrays that this was the accepted way to deal with adversaries in that day.

What is fallacious about my claim here?

It argues not against the claims being made, but merely against the persons making the claims. You can translate “ad hominem”… can’t you?

My daily bread does not depend on my faith commitments or opinions about theology at all. I am free to change my mind with no consequences.

Au contraire, my friend. You’ve got more skin in the game than you realize. Your entire perspective on the world is at stake. If you accept Catholic teaching as truth, the pillars of your world-view come crashing down. That’s at least as hairy a consequence as “daily bread” – in fact, it’s a far weightier consequence!

Does the existence of these counter examples mean that my argument is intrinsically fallacious, or are they exceptions to the general rule?

Neither, I’d say. Rather, it points to the fact that personally-held convictions are precisely that: personally-held. You’re merely demonstrating that a person can change his mind. That doesn’t prove or disprove the conclusions he’s abandoning or embracing; it merely demonstrates that he’s decided for one and against another.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You demonstrated no such knowledge…[CUT]…best convey that idea to his audience.

Why would you give the priest the benefit of the doubt here but assume ignorance on my part? You assume that the only reason I mentioned Greek rather than Aramaic (in contrast to Hebrew) is my ignorance of the historical context. However, you assume the priest mentioned Hebrew because he “didn’t feel like…go[ing] down the rabbit hole.”

Bottom line: it doesn’t matter that Jesus spoke Aramaic in his day-to-day life since the priest wasn’t talking about Jesus the real human being, but the character Jesus in the gospel accounts which are rendered in Greek. By his insistence that the very words in the gospel accounts were Hebrew, he raises serious questions about his education.

Again, you believe you know what Jesus “really said” but have NO evidence to back it up. (Other than an appeal to “human nature’s” capacity for memory. You’re assuming the gospel accounts tell us about reality, and that they can be “un-translated” into Aramaic to show us what Jesus “really said,” as if the gospel accounts are blow-by-blow reports of facts. This assumption is based on faith, not on documentary evidence.

That doesn’t follow at all…[CUT]…There’s an argument to be made there, but that’s not the argument you’re making here.

Again, you assume there was an original meaning that can be “mapped” retroactively from later accounts in a foreign language.

I’m not even making an argument dude. My point was that the priest was ignorant because he clearly and explicitly said the Hebrew word Jesus spoke in the gospels translated as “hate” in English doesn’t really mean “hate.” I believe this shows he has no understanding of the texts, though you charitably assume he was trying to avoid “rabbit holes.”

Godwin’s law. You lose the debate. …[CUT]… is inaccurate.)

I just thought you would like to be aware of the intellectual company you’re keeping.

But, they’re a different subject, and should be taught in a different context. Do students who are learning calculus need to know the sordid details of the Leibniz-Newton controversy? Of course not. However, later on, knowledge of the historical background rounds out the knowledge of calculus.

Catholicism isn’t like Calculus. Calculus can be demonstrated to be true. My wife teaches it all the time. Catholicism cannot be demonstrated to be true, and relies on naked appeals to authority. If calculus relied on appeals to authority instead of reason, and Newtonian and Leibnizians had been torturing and killing each other for centuries due to their minor differences in the interpretation of Euler, then it would absolutely make sense to examine the sordid details.