O
otm
Guest
And you are confusing sainthood with scholarship. Neither one is dependant on the other; they can exist in a person at the same time, but their existence is separate.
- Status
O
otm
Guest
And so, because someone who doesn’t have the brains God gave a sick goose misquotes Father Brown and shows no understanding of how limited his answers were, We should all condemn Brown.
By that logic, several popes should be condemned as they, through their authority, appointed bishops who then either sexually abused boys, or mishandled priests who abused boys.
Brown is a scholar’s scholar, and I say that because so few people seem to understand what Brown really said; they fail to understand that he asked a very limited question, and gave an answer within the bounds of those limits.
I, too, have heard people say what Brown said; and after I read him, I found that they didn’t have a clue, and he did not say what they said he said… As I said above, I don’t think that priests, nums, RCIA teachers, and a whole host of other people whould be quoting Brown until they have had a lot more background than they show. and if they had that background, they wopuld probably realize that Brown’s technical answers have no place in their teaching; not because his answers are untrue, but because they are several levels above the discussion and only serve to create confusion to the average, unsophisticated listener.
Let me try it another way. There is a term in some of the more sophisticated levels of theology which has caused much chaos: the term “myth”. As used in Ph.D. level research, it has a specific and constrained meaning. As used in laymen’s terms, the meaning is altogether different. People who do not understand the technical definition the the word “myth” have applied it willy-nilly to the Bible with disasterous results to laymen. It is like using the word “cult”; a word that is legitimately applied by the Chruch to the Church in a technical sense, and does not mean the same thing as “cult” when applied, for example, to the individuals in Jonestown, or the group suicide started over the (non) impending asteroid.
Much mischief has occured by people with only a little knowledge taking things they did not understand, and telling it to people with almost no knowledge.
W
whosebob
Guest
JMJ + OBT
What about the following:R. E. Brown once wrote (in: “The Myth of the Gospels without Myth” in St. Anthony’s Messenger, May 1971, pp.45-46) that to accept all the miracles in the Gospel would be fundamentalism, and adds that no respectable scholar, Catholic or Protestant would do that today.
(Fr. Most, Basic Scripture)
R. Brown, (Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Paulist, 1973 , p. 108) says many now doubt if Jesus spoke words after Easter. He thinks instead Jesus used interior locutions. Thus Brown thinks he can account for the fact that at first the Apostles seemed not to understand the command to teach all nations . . . COMMENTS: 1. Brown does not understand interior locutions. St. Teresa of Avila, who had many of them, tells us (Life 25) that when God speaks in this way, “the soul has no remedy, even though it displeases me, I have to listen, and to pay such full attention to understand that which God wishes to understand.” In her Interior Castle 6. 3. she adds: “When time has passed since heard, and the workings and the certainty it had that it was God has passed, doubt can come.” Therefore: The Apostles would have had to understand at once if Jesus had used interior locution, it would be later when unclarity or doubt could come. But the real explanation why the Apostles acted the way they did is evident: The Apostles were so slow to understand, as the Gospels show many times. They were hindered by fixed ideas that He was going to restore power to Israel. Even just before the ascension they asked (Acts 1. 6) whether He was going to restore the kingship to Israel then.
(Fr. Most, Commentary on the Gospels: The Thought of St. Matthew)
Many scripture scholars today do much the same, e.g., “The New Testament gives us no reason to think that Jesus and Paul were not deadly serious about the demonic world… I do not believe the demons inhabit desert places or the upper air, as Jesus and Paul thought… I see no way to get around the difficulty except by saying that Jesus and Paul were wrong on this point. They accepted the beliefs of their times about demons, but those beliefs were superstitious” (R. Brown, St. Anthony’s Messenger, May 1971, 47-48.). The writer, Father Raymond Brown, thinks Jesus was so ignorant as to preach error based on superstitions. He also wonders if Jesus knew much about the future life: “Perhaps he had nothing new to say about the afterlife other than emphasizing what was already known, that God would reward the good and punish the wicked” (R. E. Brown, Jesus, God and Man, Macmillan, N.Y. 1967, 101.). As to whether Jesus knew who He was, we find Fr. Brown inclined to prefer the opinion that Jesus had “some sort of intuition or immediate awareness of what he was, but…that the ability to express this in a communicable way had to be acquired gradually” (Ibid, 100.). To put it simply: Jesus knew in some vague way who He was but somehow could not manage to say it!
(Fr. Most, The Consciousness of Christ)
The chief point of the parable is quite clear. What of the mention of demons striding through deserts? This has occasioned charges, such as that by Fr. Brown: “I do not believe the demons inhabit desert places or the upper air, as Jesus and Paul thought…I see no way to get around the difficulty except by saying that Jesus and Paul were wrong on this point. They accepted the beliefs of their times about demons, but those beliefs were superstitious” (R. Brown, St. Anthony’s Messenger, May 1971, 47-48.). Fr. Brown seems to think he is forced to say Jesus was wrong and held superstitious views! But Fr. Brown is hardly forced: (1) no one presses every detail of a parable; it would then become an allegory, and no longer be a parable. (2) Jesus quite artistically embellished His parable with colorful imagery that had deep roots in the Old Testament, in poetic passages like Is 13:21 and 34:14, and in the colorful narrative of Tobias 8:3ff. Has Fr. Brown forgotten that it is impossible to speak of anything supernatural (including hell and demons) apart from the use of imagery and analogy?
(Fr. Most, The Consciousness of Christ)
(continued below)
W
whosebob
Guest
(continued from above)
Jesus describes hell in terms of unquenchable fire (Mk 9:48; Mt 25:41), ravenous worms (Mk 9:48), frustrated grinding of teeth and weeping (MI 8:12; 13:42), insatiable thirst (Lk 16:24), and with a great chasm between the place of beatitude and the place of punishment (Lk 16:26). Further, He speaks of banquets in the place of beatitude (Mt 8:11) and heaven as above the clouds (Mk 13:26; 14:62). R. Brown comments: “…we cannot assume that Jesus shared our own sophistication on some of these questions. If Jesus speaks of heaven above the clouds…how can we be sure that he knew that it was not above the clouds” (R. E. Brown, Jesus, God and Man, Macmillan, N.Y. 1967, 56.)? Leaving aside the deep insight that Jesus was not so sophisticated as we are (which conjures up Bultmann’s overweening esteem for modern man who has seen a lightbulb and the wireless (Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, 5), we must say: These expressions certainly include some rather obvious imagery, much of it related to the apocalyptic literary genre. If Jesus wished to use imagery, adapting Himself to His hearers, and to employ apocalyptic figures, which were also current then-and precisely because current, they would be understood correctly-is that a ground for imputing ignorance? Such oikonomia or adaptation is really needed to enable God to meet human weakness since, as Is 55:9 reports: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways.” We should hardly arrogantly think Jesus inferior, less intelligent than ourselves. Rather, He stooped to our dullness.
(Fr. Most, The Consciousness of Christ)
And there are many, many more examples like these . . . again, please see the works of the late Fr. William Most, in particular:
The arsenic would diffuse throughout the glass of tasy liquid in such a way that you couldn’t well pick out the “lemonade part” and the “poison part.” You might be able to do so with the help of some equipment from a chemistry lab, but then you probably wouldn’t end up with “one glass lemonade, one glass poison” per se.
In a similar manner, Brown’s heterodoxy is rather diffused throughout his methods and writings, and in such a way that your average reader can, unassisted, neither identify nor “sift” well enough among his presuppositions and conclusions in order to benefit from his insights and genuine contributions without being wounded by his errors.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
IC XC NIKA
Jesus describes hell in terms of unquenchable fire (Mk 9:48; Mt 25:41), ravenous worms (Mk 9:48), frustrated grinding of teeth and weeping (MI 8:12; 13:42), insatiable thirst (Lk 16:24), and with a great chasm between the place of beatitude and the place of punishment (Lk 16:26). Further, He speaks of banquets in the place of beatitude (Mt 8:11) and heaven as above the clouds (Mk 13:26; 14:62). R. Brown comments: “…we cannot assume that Jesus shared our own sophistication on some of these questions. If Jesus speaks of heaven above the clouds…how can we be sure that he knew that it was not above the clouds” (R. E. Brown, Jesus, God and Man, Macmillan, N.Y. 1967, 56.)? Leaving aside the deep insight that Jesus was not so sophisticated as we are (which conjures up Bultmann’s overweening esteem for modern man who has seen a lightbulb and the wireless (Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, 5), we must say: These expressions certainly include some rather obvious imagery, much of it related to the apocalyptic literary genre. If Jesus wished to use imagery, adapting Himself to His hearers, and to employ apocalyptic figures, which were also current then-and precisely because current, they would be understood correctly-is that a ground for imputing ignorance? Such oikonomia or adaptation is really needed to enable God to meet human weakness since, as Is 55:9 reports: “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways.” We should hardly arrogantly think Jesus inferior, less intelligent than ourselves. Rather, He stooped to our dullness.
(Fr. Most, The Consciousness of Christ)
And there are many, many more examples like these . . . again, please see the works of the late Fr. William Most, in particular:
Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars
The Consciousness of Christ
The Consciousness of Christ
If I were to offer you a glass of lemonade that contained even a small amount of arsenic, and if you knew it contained poisin, you would most likely object to drinking it. But what if you didn’t know it contained poison, or didn’t know how to test for poison?
The arsenic would diffuse throughout the glass of tasy liquid in such a way that you couldn’t well pick out the “lemonade part” and the “poison part.” You might be able to do so with the help of some equipment from a chemistry lab, but then you probably wouldn’t end up with “one glass lemonade, one glass poison” per se.
In a similar manner, Brown’s heterodoxy is rather diffused throughout his methods and writings, and in such a way that your average reader can, unassisted, neither identify nor “sift” well enough among his presuppositions and conclusions in order to benefit from his insights and genuine contributions without being wounded by his errors.
He was no Jack Chick nor a James White, that is certain. But an “insider” can often do more damage to his brothers and sisters within the Church by the errors he spreads among them, than those can who rail on her from the outside – cancer can be just as deadly as the flu or a bacterial infection, if not more so.
In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
IC XC NIKA
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
otm,
Brown: "critical investigations also point to religious errors in the Bible"
Ratzinger: the Church affirms as dogma: "the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts"
Imagine if I were to say that the “virgin birth of Christ” didn’t really mean that Mary remained a virgin in the literal sense. The “nuanced understanding” that enlightened Catholics should have is that NT writer made an error. The Hebrew word for “young woman” was translated centuries before Christ incorrectly by Hebrews into the Greek Septuagint word for “virgin.” The NT writer made a simple error in using the incorrectly translated Septuagint as his source, thus affirming that Jesus was born of a virgin. That’s the “nuanced understanding” of the dogma of Catholicism that "Mary was a Virgin, before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ." Intellectually enlightened Catholics assent to this dogma by simply understanding that “virgin Mary” really means “young-woman Mary”. Would that be assent or dissent to Catholic dogma?
I think some who fancy themselves intellectuall superior to others often cloak their obvious dissent with Catholic teaching in the words “nuanced understanding.” If any scholar’s “nuanced understanding” is essentially contrary to what the magisterium teaches, then his “nuances” are heterodox, no matter how much connected and praised in the American academic community one seems to be.
to be continued …
Nope, just pointing out the obvious…
Brown: "critical investigations also point to religious errors in the Bible"
Ratzinger: the Church affirms as dogma: "the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts"
If this were true (which I don’t believe for moment), then his use of the words “errors in the Bible” was a strange indication of his assent to this dogma.
Imagine if I were to say that the “virgin birth of Christ” didn’t really mean that Mary remained a virgin in the literal sense. The “nuanced understanding” that enlightened Catholics should have is that NT writer made an error. The Hebrew word for “young woman” was translated centuries before Christ incorrectly by Hebrews into the Greek Septuagint word for “virgin.” The NT writer made a simple error in using the incorrectly translated Septuagint as his source, thus affirming that Jesus was born of a virgin. That’s the “nuanced understanding” of the dogma of Catholicism that "Mary was a Virgin, before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ." Intellectually enlightened Catholics assent to this dogma by simply understanding that “virgin Mary” really means “young-woman Mary”. Would that be assent or dissent to Catholic dogma?
I think some who fancy themselves intellectuall superior to others often cloak their obvious dissent with Catholic teaching in the words “nuanced understanding.” If any scholar’s “nuanced understanding” is essentially contrary to what the magisterium teaches, then his “nuances” are heterodox, no matter how much connected and praised in the American academic community one seems to be.
I have studied from Fr. Brown’s works for years. I don’t think I’ve jumped to any conclusions, but instead understand what he obviously asserts: there are errors in the Bible, even in religious matters.
Being a graduate doesn’t mean he’s protestant, but his advocacy of protestant hermeneutics results in a biblical exegesis that is no different than Protestant exegesis.
to be continued …
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
In Fr. Brown’s approach to biblical interpretation, he see “***no reason why a Catholic’s understanding of what Matthew and Luke meant in their infancy narratives should be different from a Protestants.” ***(*Birth of the Messiah, *pg. 9). Fr. Brown expressed resentment of Church authority limiting the biblical scholar’s “***freedom to play with his newfangled toys of language and literary form … to be kept in a playpen and not let out to disturb the good order of the theological household” ***(*The Virginal Conception, *pg. 6). Rejecting an *a priori *view of Scripture, Fr. Brown states that “we shift to an a posteriori approach” (*The Critical Meaning of the Bible, *pg. 17) “***If one has a priori view … that forbids a religious error in the Bible … [or] historical and scientific errors… This approach, in my judgment, is an unmitigated disaster” ***(ibid).
Carefully compare the above assertions from Fr. Brown to the assertions of Pope Paul VI, in his 1964 *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (Sancta Mater Ecclesia) *addressed to Catholics exegetes, writers, and teachers:
Carefully compare the above assertions from Fr. Brown to the assertions of Pope Paul VI, in his 1964 *Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (Sancta Mater Ecclesia) *addressed to Catholics exegetes, writers, and teachers:
Shall we follow Fr. Brown’s a posteriori approach to Sacred Scripture, or Pope Paul VI’s approach of accepting a priori the historical value and character of Scriptures? Shall we assert with Fr. Brown that the sacred writer have erred in all sorts of ways, to include religious matters, or shall we take Pope Paul VI’s view that Scripture is “***immune from all error?” ***
B
BibleReader
Guest
itsjustDave:
Quote:
Aquinas never recanted saying that the fetus receives its soul only months after conception.
Actually, the Catholic magisterium to this day has not defined when the fetus receives a rational soul. So I don’t believe there’s anything to recant of.
ANSWER:
The Immaculate Conception doctrine announced in the 19th century is not conceivable unless Mary was fully “there,” body AND SOUL, at conception.
You are wrong.
Aquinas was wrong.
He never recanted.
So, I ask, Why aren’t you attacking YOUR CHURCH for touting Aquinas with the same energy that you attack Father Brown?
On the subject of whether the existence of ineffable God can be proven, please prove, in a non-ineffable way, dispelling all reasonable doubt, which all here can grasp, that ineffable God exists.
The problem with Aquinas’ arguments is that they all self-destruct – if “being” = “created,” why does the rule “turn off” when applied to God, but fail to turn off when applied to something other than God?
Quote:
Aquinas never recanted saying that the fetus receives its soul only months after conception.
Actually, the Catholic magisterium to this day has not defined when the fetus receives a rational soul. So I don’t believe there’s anything to recant of.
ANSWER:
The Immaculate Conception doctrine announced in the 19th century is not conceivable unless Mary was fully “there,” body AND SOUL, at conception.
You are wrong.
Aquinas was wrong.
He never recanted.
So, I ask, Why aren’t you attacking YOUR CHURCH for touting Aquinas with the same energy that you attack Father Brown?
On the subject of whether the existence of ineffable God can be proven, please prove, in a non-ineffable way, dispelling all reasonable doubt, which all here can grasp, that ineffable God exists.
The problem with Aquinas’ arguments is that they all self-destruct – if “being” = “created,” why does the rule “turn off” when applied to God, but fail to turn off when applied to something other than God?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Biblereader,
In other words, before the infusion of the rational soul, Mary was not sanctified, as she didn’t need to be. Prior to her animation with a rational soul, Mary could have been ensouled just as St. Thomas describes, with a non-rational soul and then later with a rational soul. The Catholic Church has left such speculations to the field of free opinion, as this is a philosophical matter having nothing to do with Catholic faith or morals. If it is a free opinion now, the Church certainly cannot bind St.Thomas to a more strict standard that was even more speculative during his day.
So, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was also a matter of free opinion during St. Thomas’ day, affirms nothing more or nothing less than: at the first moment of her animation with a rational soul] she was preserved from all stain of original sin. Moreover, this sanctification is to be understood to have occurred as described by Duns Scotus (d. 1308) (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries): “***the sanctification after animation – sanctificatio post animationem – demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis)” ***(ibid.)
So, it is Catholic theology that Mary was sanctified post animationem (after animation) in the order of nature, but not in the order of time.
Catholics normally do not dig that deep into Catholic theology, unless they have to because some pesky professor of religious studies makes them dig that deep.
So, the “moment in time” in which the rational soul is infused is as of yet a free philosophical opinion according to the Catholic Church.
What I find striking in your argument is that you give me your mere opinion, whereas I quote from theological source material and magisterial texts on the matter.
You ought to have suspected your understanding as incorrect given its contradiction with what the ***Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith ***affirmed in 1974: "the moment when the spiritual soul is infused… is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent"
As for proofs of God’s existence, I’ll stick with the clear teaching of the Church on the matter. If you have more than your opinion as to why the Church has erred these past 2000 years in this regard, please share it with us.
If you’d like to start another thread refuting the Catholic Church’s teaching that “proofs for the existence of God” do exist, then be my guest. I recommend you stay away from building the strawman of Catholic teaching that you seem to want to build, simply for the purposes of knocking it down. Stick instead to the Catechism’s understanding of what “proofs” are. We can know by reason alone that God exists. There’s no such pretense that we can know everything about God by reason alone. Nobody, not even Aquinas, has claimed such a thing.
Correct. However, what you fail to understand it seems is, is what the term “conception” means in this dogma:
Sin can never take effect in a non-rational soul. Consequently, the dogma above is only teaching that at the moment God infused Mary’s body with a rational soul, she was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. It says nothing either for or against delayed ensoulment theories.
In other words, before the infusion of the rational soul, Mary was not sanctified, as she didn’t need to be. Prior to her animation with a rational soul, Mary could have been ensouled just as St. Thomas describes, with a non-rational soul and then later with a rational soul. The Catholic Church has left such speculations to the field of free opinion, as this is a philosophical matter having nothing to do with Catholic faith or morals. If it is a free opinion now, the Church certainly cannot bind St.Thomas to a more strict standard that was even more speculative during his day.
So, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was also a matter of free opinion during St. Thomas’ day, affirms nothing more or nothing less than: at the first moment of her animation with a rational soul] she was preserved from all stain of original sin. Moreover, this sanctification is to be understood to have occurred as described by Duns Scotus (d. 1308) (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries): “***the sanctification after animation – sanctificatio post animationem – demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis)” ***(ibid.)
So, it is Catholic theology that Mary was sanctified post animationem (after animation) in the order of nature, but not in the order of time.
Catholics normally do not dig that deep into Catholic theology, unless they have to because some pesky professor of religious studies makes them dig that deep.
So, the “moment in time” in which the rational soul is infused is as of yet a free philosophical opinion according to the Catholic Church.
What I find striking in your argument is that you give me your mere opinion, whereas I quote from theological source material and magisterial texts on the matter.
You ought to have suspected your understanding as incorrect given its contradiction with what the ***Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith ***affirmed in 1974: "the moment when the spiritual soul is infused… is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent"
As for proofs of God’s existence, I’ll stick with the clear teaching of the Church on the matter. If you have more than your opinion as to why the Church has erred these past 2000 years in this regard, please share it with us.
If you’d like to start another thread refuting the Catholic Church’s teaching that “proofs for the existence of God” do exist, then be my guest. I recommend you stay away from building the strawman of Catholic teaching that you seem to want to build, simply for the purposes of knocking it down. Stick instead to the Catechism’s understanding of what “proofs” are. We can know by reason alone that God exists. There’s no such pretense that we can know everything about God by reason alone. Nobody, not even Aquinas, has claimed such a thing.
B
BibleReader
Guest
The Church dropped any distinction between animated and unanimated fetuses in the 19th century. Currently, the Church teaches that animation occurs at the first moment of conception. This is no longer debated.Biblereader,
Correct. However, what you fail to understand it seems is, is what the term “conception” means in this dogma:
Sin can never take effect in a non-rational soul. Consequently, the dogma above is only teaching that at the moment God infused Mary’s body with a rational soul, she was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. It says nothing either for or against delayed ensoulment theories.
In other words, before the infusion of the rational soul, Mary was not sanctified, as she didn’t need to be. Prior to her animation with a rational soul, Mary could have been ensouled just as St. Thomas describes, with a non-rational soul and then later with a rational soul. The Catholic Church has left such speculations to the field of free opinion, as this is a philosophical matter having nothing to do with Catholic faith or morals. If it is a free opinion now, the Church certainly cannot bind St.Thomas to a more strict standard that was even more speculative during his day.
So, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was also a matter of free opinion during St. Thomas’ day, affirms nothing more or nothing less than: at the first moment of her animation with a rational soul] she was preserved from all stain of original sin. Moreover, this sanctification is to be understood to have occurred as described by Duns Scotus (d. 1308) (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries): “***the sanctification after animation – sanctificatio post animationem – demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis)” ***(ibid.)
So, it is Catholic theology that Mary was sanctified post animationem (after animation) in the order of nature, but not in the order of time.
Catholics normally do not dig that deep into Catholic theology, unless they have to because some pesky professor of religious studies makes them dig that deep.
So, the “moment in time” in which the rational soul is infused is as of yet a free philosophical opinion according to the Catholic Church.
What I find striking in your argument is that you give me your mere opinion, whereas I quote from theological source material and magisterial texts on the matter.
You ought to have suspected your understanding as incorrect given its contradiction with what the ***Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith ***affirmed in 1974: "the moment when the spiritual soul is infused… is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent"
As for proofs of God’s existence, I’ll stick with the clear teaching of the Church on the matter. If you have more than your opinion as to why the Church has erred these past 2000 years in this regard, please share it with us.
If you’d like to start another thread refuting the Catholic Church’s teaching that “proofs for the existence of God” do exist, then be my guest. I recommend you stay away from building the strawman of Catholic teaching that you seem to want to build, simply for the purposes of knocking it down. Stick instead to the Catechism’s understanding of what “proofs” are. We can know by reason alone that God exists. There’s no such pretense that we can know everything about God by reason alone. Nobody, not even Aquinas, has claimed such a thing.
The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away.
newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
Aquinas erred. The Church erred when it accepted Aquinas’ distinction.
And, of course, I knew that you couldn’t prove God’s existence, any more than you can see the fullness of a transcendental number.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I disagree. (and we can keep doing this for months if you wish) http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif
Read the bold print above again with the understanding of the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia, articulated clearly in this article CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception, asserting what “conception” means. It is the moment the RATIONAL soul is infused by God into the Body. It says nothing either for or against delayed ensoulment. I believe you are too blinded by your stubborn pride to accept a MAGISTERIAL source OF THE 20TH CENTURY that CLEARLY contradicts you.
***Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ***
***Questio de abortu ***
*(Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974), n.19: *
"This declaration leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused… It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independentfor two reasons: (i) supposing a later animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed; (ii) on the other hand it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a human being, not only waiting for, but already in possession of her/his soul."
If you don’t have a MAGISTERIAL text that contradicts the above decision, then you lack convincing evidence.
If you are still confused on the matter, I suggest you write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Divine Faith for a clarification.
As for proving God’s existence, I don’t have to. Aquinas and many others already have, and your heretical insistence to the contrary has already been condemend by the Church:
Vatican I defined as an article of faith: "If anybody says that the one true God, Our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, anathema sit."
I suggest you look up what “anathema sit” means.
Seems to me the only thing you’ve proven is that you are clinging to heresy.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by BibleReader
*The Church dropped any distinction between animated and unanimated fetuses in the 19th century. Currently, the Church teaches that animation occurs at the first moment of conception. This is no longer debated.
The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away.
newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
Aquinas erred. The Church erred when it accepted Aquinas’ distinction.
*
I disagree. (and we can keep doing this for months if you wish) http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif
You are “disagreeing,” but you are disagreeing with an article in the very same Catholic Encyclopedia you cited AGAINST me on the exact opposite point.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Read the bold print above again with the understanding of the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia, articulated clearly in this article CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception, asserting what “conception” means. It is the moment the RATIONAL soul is infused by God into the Body. It says nothing either for or against delayed ensoulment. I believe you are too blinded by your stubborn pride to accept a MAGISTERIAL source OF THE 20TH CENTURY that CLEARLY contradicts you.
***Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ***
***Questio de abortu ***
*(Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974), n.19: *
***Quote:
"This declaration leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused… It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independentfor two reasons: (i) supposing a later animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed; (ii) on the other hand it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a human being, not only waiting for, but already in possession of her/his soul."
If you don’t have a MAGISTERIAL text that contradicts the above decision, then you lack convincing evidence.
You are not carefully reading your own “authoritative” source, Dave. Allow me to make large the important words you are overlooking in your own “authority”…
"This declaration leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused"
It “leaves aside the question.” It says nothing on the question. It doesn’t say it can be answered. It doesn’t say it can’t be answered. It doesn’t say it has been answered. It doesn’t say it hasn’t been answered. It "leaves aside the question."
**In other words, Dave, your “authority” bails out on you on the precise question as to which you seek an answer.
Have you exhaustively reviewed all other Church declarations, heretic, to see if they DON’T “leave aside the question”?**
I wonder if there is an anathema attached to denying that the embryo has a soul. What do you think, heretic?
**______________________________________________
To be continued…
**
Originally Posted by BibleReader
*The Church dropped any distinction between animated and unanimated fetuses in the 19th century. Currently, the Church teaches that animation occurs at the first moment of conception. This is no longer debated.
The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away.
newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
Aquinas erred. The Church erred when it accepted Aquinas’ distinction.
*
I disagree. (and we can keep doing this for months if you wish) http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif
You are “disagreeing,” but you are disagreeing with an article in the very same Catholic Encyclopedia you cited AGAINST me on the exact opposite point.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Read the bold print above again with the understanding of the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia, articulated clearly in this article CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Immaculate Conception, asserting what “conception” means. It is the moment the RATIONAL soul is infused by God into the Body. It says nothing either for or against delayed ensoulment. I believe you are too blinded by your stubborn pride to accept a MAGISTERIAL source OF THE 20TH CENTURY that CLEARLY contradicts you.
***Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ***
***Questio de abortu ***
*(Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974), n.19: *
***Quote:
"This declaration leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused… It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independentfor two reasons: (i) supposing a later animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed; (ii) on the other hand it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a human being, not only waiting for, but already in possession of her/his soul."
If you don’t have a MAGISTERIAL text that contradicts the above decision, then you lack convincing evidence.
You are not carefully reading your own “authoritative” source, Dave. Allow me to make large the important words you are overlooking in your own “authority”…
"This declaration leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused"
It “leaves aside the question.” It says nothing on the question. It doesn’t say it can be answered. It doesn’t say it can’t be answered. It doesn’t say it has been answered. It doesn’t say it hasn’t been answered. It "leaves aside the question."
**In other words, Dave, your “authority” bails out on you on the precise question as to which you seek an answer.
Have you exhaustively reviewed all other Church declarations, heretic, to see if they DON’T “leave aside the question”?**
I wonder if there is an anathema attached to denying that the embryo has a soul. What do you think, heretic?
**______________________________________________
To be continued…
**
B
BibleReader
Guest
If you are still confused on the matter, I suggest you write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Divine Faith for a clarification.
As for proving God’s existence, I don’t have to. Aquinas and many others already have, and your heretical insistence to the contrary has already been condemend by the Church:
Vatican I defined as an article of faith: "If anybody says that the one true God, Our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, anathema sit."
I suggest you look up what “anathema sit” means.
Seems to me the only thing you’ve proven is that you are clinging to heresy.
God bless,
Dave
Now, sit back and consider for a moment the totality of what you are attempting to do here.
First you have this Rube-Goldberg-contraption of an argument in which you attempt to prove that Aquinas’ mistake can still be regarded as a correct statement, by citing a Catholic Encyclopedia article SQUARELY CONTRADICTED by another Catholic Encyclopedia article, and then you cite as “authority” a Church declaration that says that it “leaves aside” any opinion on the point.
And then you call me a "heretic."
Aren’t you a teensy, weensy bit nervous about that package?
And THEN, after YOU argue that we can’t even know for sure when the invisible thing called a soul infuses our own physologies, citing this self-contradicting encyclopedia and that Church declaration which says that it really has no opinion on the point, you add that we CAN prove for sure that the invisible thing we call God which DOESN’T infuse our physiologies is “out there,” without faith, without grace, but with “proof,” and then, of course, of course, you refuse to discuss the "proof."
And, of course, I’m “anathema” on that, as my soul rushes down to Hell fire by express train.
Suggestion: Calm down, and ask yourself, "Which Catholic Encyclopedia statement would the Holy Father go with, today?"
Additionally, please answer this multiple choice question…
**The first few words of the Apostles Creed are, **
(a) “I believe in God…”; or
(b) “I know with certainy, by the things around me, that there is a God, so that ‘believing’ in God as a matter of faith, and refusing to know that there is a God only from the things around me, is anathema…”?
Please answer.
Also, I really would like you to do what is so obvious to you, and prove beyond all conceivable doubt that God the Ineffable One, exists.
Please, do so.
As for proving God’s existence, I don’t have to. Aquinas and many others already have, and your heretical insistence to the contrary has already been condemend by the Church:
Vatican I defined as an article of faith: "If anybody says that the one true God, Our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty in the light of human reason by those things which have been made, anathema sit."
I suggest you look up what “anathema sit” means.
Seems to me the only thing you’ve proven is that you are clinging to heresy.
God bless,
Dave
Now, sit back and consider for a moment the totality of what you are attempting to do here.
First you have this Rube-Goldberg-contraption of an argument in which you attempt to prove that Aquinas’ mistake can still be regarded as a correct statement, by citing a Catholic Encyclopedia article SQUARELY CONTRADICTED by another Catholic Encyclopedia article, and then you cite as “authority” a Church declaration that says that it “leaves aside” any opinion on the point.
And then you call me a "heretic."
Aren’t you a teensy, weensy bit nervous about that package?
And THEN, after YOU argue that we can’t even know for sure when the invisible thing called a soul infuses our own physologies, citing this self-contradicting encyclopedia and that Church declaration which says that it really has no opinion on the point, you add that we CAN prove for sure that the invisible thing we call God which DOESN’T infuse our physiologies is “out there,” without faith, without grace, but with “proof,” and then, of course, of course, you refuse to discuss the "proof."
And, of course, I’m “anathema” on that, as my soul rushes down to Hell fire by express train.
Suggestion: Calm down, and ask yourself, "Which Catholic Encyclopedia statement would the Holy Father go with, today?"
Additionally, please answer this multiple choice question…
**The first few words of the Apostles Creed are, **
(a) “I believe in God…”; or
(b) “I know with certainy, by the things around me, that there is a God, so that ‘believing’ in God as a matter of faith, and refusing to know that there is a God only from the things around me, is anathema…”?
Please answer.
Also, I really would like you to do what is so obvious to you, and prove beyond all conceivable doubt that God the Ineffable One, exists.
Please, do so.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The obligation is upon you to prove Aquinas wrong. Cite the magisterial text that is contrary to delayed ensoulment. I’m still waiting. Making your letters bold and bigger, while humorous and little sad, does not improve your argument.
B
BibleReader
Guest
I’ll do what I can, my unpersuasive, stubborn friend.
And, of course, of course, you can’t write the obvious, convincing, unquestionable, non-faith-based proof that God exists.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Here’s the rest of the paragraph from the 1974 *Instruction *, which sheds more light upon why the matter is still free opinion:
Referencing the above 1974 instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger in 1987 affirms, with Pope John Paul II approval:
Why does it reamain a philosophical problem which Catholic affirmation remains independent? Because there exists no unanimous tradition and authors are as yet in disagreement.
Referencing the above 1974 instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger in 1987 affirms, with Pope John Paul II approval:
Why does the moment when the spiritual soul is infused in the human body remain a philosophical problem which remains a matter of free opinion? Because “the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature.”
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The above information ought to help narrow your search for that magisterial document that proves Aquinas wrong. Now you only have to find a document dated after 1987 where the Magisterium has expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature.
Good luck.
Good luck.
B
BibleReader
Guest
Here you go, Dave. This is by Mr. Akin, one of the theologians who run this site…
**As such, so long as a human body is alive, it has a human soul, for, as James tells us, “the body apart from the spirit is dead” Jas. 2:26). This point of biblical theology was infallibly proclaimed, using philosophical terminology, by the Council of Vienna (1311-1312). The Council dogmatically defined that the soul is the substantial form of a living human body — the metaphysical form that gives the body its humanness and its life (DS 902 [D 481], CCC 365). When the soul departs, the body ceases to be living, loses its integrity, and begins to decay. **
B
BibleReader
Guest
B
BibleReader
Guest
As I said before, Fr. Brown critic, this stuff is complex, and Father Brown was a good Catholic who had a lot to say that was very valuable.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Biblereader,
With all due respect to Mr. Akin, he’s not vested with magisterial authority. The magisterial documents he cites say nothing about when and how the magisterium has expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature such as when the body first receives a rational soul. The moment of conception is indeed that moment when the rational soul is infused in the body. The Church remains uncommitted as to when that occurs. If not, please show me the magisterial text, something published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis that expressly confirms when the rational soul is infused into the body.
Mr. Akin stated: “As modern medicine has shown, conception in humans occurs almost instantaneously, as soon as the sperm and the ovum unite.” He’s correct. But as the magisterium affirms, science cannot tell us when the rational soul is created and infused by God into the body that science is referring to. This is a philosophical problem that science cannot solve. Neither have you or Mr. Akin shown that the magisterium has expressly committed itself to an affirmation on this philosophical problem. In other words, the precise moment God infuses the rational soul into the human body remains speculative.
Do you have a magisterial document you can cite rather than an article from another layperson? As much as I enjoy reading Mr. Akin’s articles, Cardinal Ratzinger possesses magisterial authority when he affirmed with approval from Pope John Paul II in 1987 that "The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature"
As I see it, Mr. Akin makes a good argument, but he is merely among the many authors that the 1974 instruction describes as being in disagreement over a ***philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent. ***Mr. Akin is not vested with magisterial authority, whereas, Cardinal Ratzinger is.
With all due respect to Mr. Akin, he’s not vested with magisterial authority. The magisterial documents he cites say nothing about when and how the magisterium has expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature such as when the body first receives a rational soul. The moment of conception is indeed that moment when the rational soul is infused in the body. The Church remains uncommitted as to when that occurs. If not, please show me the magisterial text, something published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis that expressly confirms when the rational soul is infused into the body.
Mr. Akin stated: “As modern medicine has shown, conception in humans occurs almost instantaneously, as soon as the sperm and the ovum unite.” He’s correct. But as the magisterium affirms, science cannot tell us when the rational soul is created and infused by God into the body that science is referring to. This is a philosophical problem that science cannot solve. Neither have you or Mr. Akin shown that the magisterium has expressly committed itself to an affirmation on this philosophical problem. In other words, the precise moment God infuses the rational soul into the human body remains speculative.
Do you have a magisterial document you can cite rather than an article from another layperson? As much as I enjoy reading Mr. Akin’s articles, Cardinal Ratzinger possesses magisterial authority when he affirmed with approval from Pope John Paul II in 1987 that "The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature"
As I see it, Mr. Akin makes a good argument, but he is merely among the many authors that the 1974 instruction describes as being in disagreement over a ***philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent. ***Mr. Akin is not vested with magisterial authority, whereas, Cardinal Ratzinger is.
- Status