Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[Neil_Anthony]

Call it what you will, but of course the Church makes changes. Look Vatican II. Look at “nulla salus extra ecclesiam.” Look at Limbo, now largely abandoned. Look at the introduction of female altar servers. Changes, evolution, enunciations of the faith once delivered…

Well, those topics would each take an entire thread.
But the point is that nothing that was defined doctrinally in the past goes on to be rejected in the future.
I would enjoy discussing how that applies to each of those items you just listed, but there are already threads on those topics.

 

[mpartyka]

TMC, you raise an interesting point in Purgatory, born in the middle ages.

Actually, stories of deceased persons who are in torments and are then released from their sufferings by the prayers and/or deeds of others still living go back at least to the 3rd century, and it was likely from these accounts that the doctrine of Purgatory developed.

Even more interesting is the theology of Limbo, now largely abandoned. (Who but a sadist would confine unbaptized infants to Limbo?) With good reason the Church has jettisoned that one.

Actually, the doctrine of Limbo was formulated to assuage the grief of parents who previously were taught that unbaptized children went to Hell just like any other unbaptized person. Likewise the doctrines of “baptism by desire” and “baptism of blood”. Underpinning all these doctrines mitigating the result of not having been baptized was a need by the Church to safeguard the laity’s confidence in the actual efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Originally Posted by Gottle of Geer
Karl Barth:theologian
Bultmann: theologian
They have something to say. Popes OTOH…

I can’t help but wonder how you and wildleafblower would react to the “Pope Leo on the Immaculate Conception” thread.

–Mike

 

[StAnastasia]

Actually, the doctrine of Limbo was formulated to assuage the grief of parents who previously were taught that unbaptized children went to Hell just like any other unbaptized person.

So we don’t need Limbo any more?

 

[StAnastasia]

Was there ever a dogma or doctrine stating when Christ would return? Is that what you’re claiming?

It’s the immediacy of the expectation that has changed, the nature of eschatological and apocalyptic vision – that has changed over time…

 

[mpartyka]

So we don’t need Limbo any more?

I wasn’t saying one way or the other. I was only suggesting that the reasons behind the development of the doctrine of Limbo most likely sprang from compassion rather than from sadism, as the prior doctrine assigned even worse consequences for the unbaptized.

–Mike

 

[TMC]

TMC:
If you have followed this thread then surely you will note that my position is the same as our Blessed Savior’s: the Spirit comes first, and then the reason/rationale. Therefore, the spirit by which you interpret this discussion is determinant of your necessary conclusion.

Neither I nor the Fathers admit to any deficiency in the transmission of the Gospel from Jesus to the Apostles nor of the Apostles to the Fathers. Doubts about epistemology are a recent novelty and had been settled by the Council of Carthage in 390 AD.

Changes? No. The Catholic Church never makes changes. The Gospel is Eternal, inerrant. No change is possible. Clarifications of meaning to contemporary generations is necessary, but these are not changes. They are contemporary enunciations of the faith once delivered to all the saints.

The Church MUST adapt it’s APPLICATION of the kerygma to each generation and its own unique challenges. It can NEVER change the kerygma or compromise its eternal meaning. That is precisely what you read on Gottle of Geer and StAnastasia’s posts. They do not support an eternal, unchanging revelation but an evolutionary man-centered interpretation bound to a theory that man is improving in his rational thought due to the processes of natural selection.

Do what you may, but test the spirits as St. John instructed. If you are in the Spirit, you will know that their interpretations are not inspiried by the Spirit of God. “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God”. St Paul, 1st Corinthians

Thanks for the response, but it doesn’t get at my question. Let me try to ask a better question.

I think that today’s Catholic theologians, the Middle Age Catholic Theologians, and the Church Fathers would all agree that Christ’s Good News is unchanging - but they may disagree on theological details. For example, three theologians (of whatever age) can agree on the basics of Christ’s message, and agree that Truth is unchanging, but disagree on theological issues, whether it be Limbo or Purgatory, or something else. Do you believe that the early Church had all these answers and that our task is to preserve (or rediscover) the answers? Or were these things worked out by theologians over time? If the latter, how do we know which matters are closed to theological inquiry, and which are still in development? If the former, why was the original revelation not better preserved?

As I am sure you know from my other postings, I think that theologians can and should continue to develop Catholic theology. I think there are some issues that have been conclusively decided, but not very many. Even those are not “out of bounds” for academic thought and discussion, because re-examination of the known is a good way to proceed into the unknown. I ask my questions because I don’t really understand the other viewpoint - that theologians should not be working on developing the faith. I am hoping someone can explain that viewpoint to me.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s the immediacy of the expectation that has changed, the nature of eschatological and apocalyptic vision – that has changed over time…

Yes so things that aren’t dogma can change, but dogma can’t change. But it can develop, but not evolve

The idea of when Christ was returning wasn’t dogma.

 

[wildleafblower]

This is my last post to this topic after having left upteen documents (beginning on page 19) from the Vatican:Holy See (a great source for truth), which I hope everyone will take the time to read. With joy and peace toward everyone, this is my final contribution, which I encourage “all” to read in its entirety though I am only presenting a snippet from:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY
TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND VISIT TO THE UNITED NATIONS
ORGANIZATION HEADQUARTERS

MEETING WITH CATHOLIC EDUCATORS

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

Conference Hall of the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
[snip]
The Church’s primary mission of evangelization, in which educational institutions play a crucial role, is consonant with a nation’s fundamental aspiration to develop a society truly worthy of the human person’s dignity. At times, however, the value of the Church’s contribution to the public forum is questioned. It is important therefore to recall that the truths of faith and of reason never contradict one another (cf. First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius, IV: DS 3017; St. Augustine, Contra Academicos, III, 20, 43). The Church’s mission, in fact, involves her in humanity’s struggle to arrive at truth. In articulating revealed truth she serves all members of society by purifying reason, ensuring that it remains open to the consideration of ultimate truths. Drawing upon divine wisdom, she sheds light on the foundation of human morality and ethics, and reminds all groups in society that it is not praxis that creates truth but truth that should serve as the basis of praxis. Far from undermining the tolerance of legitimate diversity, such a contribution illuminates the very truth which makes consensus attainable, and helps to keep public debate rational, honest and accountable. Similarly the Church never tires of upholding the essential moral categories of right and wrong, without which hope could only wither, giving way to cold pragmatic calculations of utility which render the person little more than a pawn on some ideological chess-board.

With regard to the educational forum, the diakonia of truth takes on a heightened significance in societies where secularist ideology drives a wedge between truth and faith. This division has led to a tendency to equate truth with knowledge and to adopt a positivistic mentality which, in rejecting metaphysics, denies the foundations of faith and rejects the need for a moral vision. Truth means more than knowledge: knowing the truth leads us to discover the good. Truth speaks to the individual in his or her entirety, inviting us to respond with our whole being. This optimistic vision is found in our Christian faith because such faith has been granted the vision of the Logos, God’s creative Reason, which in the Incarnation, is revealed as Goodness itself. Far from being just a communication of factual data – “informative” – the loving truth of the Gospel is creative and life-changing – “performative” (cf. Spe Salvi, 2). With confidence, Christian educators can liberate the young from the limits of positivism and awaken receptivity to the truth, to God and his goodness. In this way you will also help to form their conscience which, enriched by faith, opens a sure path to inner peace and to respect for others.

It comes as no surprise, then, that not just our own ecclesial communities but society in general has high expectations of Catholic educators. This places upon you a responsibility and offers an opportunity. More and more people – parents in particular – recognize the need for excellence in the human formation of their children. As Mater et Magistra, the Church shares their concern. When nothing beyond the individual is recognized as definitive, the ultimate criterion of judgment becomes the self and the satisfaction of the individual’s immediate wishes. The objectivity and perspective, which can only come through a recognition of the essential transcendent dimension of the human person, can be lost. Within such a relativistic horizon the goals of education are inevitably curtailed. Slowly, a lowering of standards occurs. We observe today a timidity in the face of the category of the good and an aimless pursuit of novelty parading as the realization of freedom. We witness an assumption that every experience is of equal worth and a reluctance to admit imperfection and mistakes. And particularly disturbing, is the reduction of the precious and delicate area of education in sexuality to management of ‘risk’, bereft of any reference to the beauty of conjugal love.
[snip]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080417_cath-univ-washington_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...xvi_spe_20080417_cath-univ-washington_en.html
May ya all have a merry Christmas! (Thank you Catholic.com for providing us the opportunity to discuss a wide range of topics. I’ll be moving onto the scientific discussions. I love science too!)

 

[mpartyka]

This is my last post to this topic after having left upteen documents (beginning on page 19) from the Vatican:Holy See (a great source for truth), which I hope everyone will take the time to read…
…
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080417_cath-univ-washington_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...xvi_spe_20080417_cath-univ-washington_en.html

I read the whole document, and I really have no idea why you cited it, as it doesn’t contain any explicit rejection of evolution by the Pope (which is where I thought your focus would be).

–Mike

 

[wildleafblower]

I read the whole document, and I really have no idea why you cited it, as it doesn’t contain any explicit rejection of evolution by the Pope (which is where I thought your focus would be).

–Mike

The topic isn’t stricktly about “evolution”. I never stated I rejected evolution. I’m fully aware what the Pope has stated and posted on OTHER topics his comments. You really should read my postings from other topics rather this one. The document I provided above has to do with this topic of discussion Scripture: What’s myth and what’s history? The problem is there are Catholic theologians and scientists that ignore the Pope(s) who consult with their own Scientific Advisory Committee. In the process some of these Catholic theologians and scientists ignore the POPE’s statement:

With regard to the educational forum, the diakonia of truth takes on a heightened significance in societies where secularist ideology drives a wedge between truth and faith. This division has led to a tendency to equate truth with knowledge and to adopt a positivistic mentality which, in rejecting metaphysics, denies the foundations of faith and rejects the need for a moral vision. Truth means more than knowledge: knowing the truth leads us to discover the good. Truth speaks to the individual in his or her entirety, inviting us to respond with our whole being. This optimistic vision is found in our Christian faith because such faith has been granted the vision of the Logos, God’s creative Reason, which in the Incarnation, is revealed as Goodness itself. Far from being just a communication of factual data – “informative” – the loving truth of the Gospel is creative and life-changing – “performative” (cf. Spe Salvi, 2). With confidence, Christian educators can liberate the young from the limits of positivism and awaken receptivity to the truth, to God and his goodness. In this way you will also help to form their conscience which, enriched by faith, opens a sure path to inner peace and to respect for others.

TA TA

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi mpartyka aka Mike,

You’ve quote-mined thus distorted the truth in your post 435 from the document that I earlier presented:

I think you’ve misunderstood the OP ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Obviously, you don’t know anything about heresy or you wouldn’t have make such a statement.

Which statement do you have in mind ?​

You can balk till the lake runs dry since I know that I have most definately provided relevant material that you wish I hadn’t. Oh, you could have fooled me but you didn’t. LOL!

What are you talking about ? What have I said that is unorthodox ? AFAICS, nothing. FYI, quoting other writers is not argument - unless how it fits into a post is reasonably clear. Nothing you’ve posted meets anything I’ve posted.​

If you can’t see a difference between what theologians do, & what Popes do, I can’t make you. Let me put this as simply as I can: Popes have one function in the Church, & theologians, another. Both are forms of service to Christ. Christ is ultimate - not the Pope. It is the revelation of the inaccessible God in the presence of the man Jesus the Nazarene that is the life of the Church, since “this Jesus, whom God raised up” is, through the Gift of His Father, known through faith as both Lord & Christ. What the Popes say has to be in conformity with Christ - they cannot, any more than other Christian, you, me, anyone, “do their own thing”: like any other Christian, he is “a man under obedience”.

One purpose of Church authority to conserve what is already “possessed”, so as to make it available for the Church at large in the present, without foreclosing future developments. A possible but not inevitable by-product of faithfulness to this work of conservation, is insensitivity to the action of the Holy Spirit through other members of the Church. (Newman discusses the possibility of collision between the priestly, prophetic & royal exercises of authority in the history of the Papacy - this collision also occurs between Popes & other Catholics, & between Catholics in general.

I don’t think that is unorthodox If it is true, it may be unorthodox - that does not make it untrue. Unorthodoxy is dependent on context in part at least - after 1854, what Aquinas taught on the Conception of the BVM would have counted as materially heretical (unless he & the Bull of Dec. 8 1854 were looking at the CotBVM from different angles; which may be the case). But the point should be clear, even if the example is a bad one.

The thread is not about me, nor about you or any OP: it really is time we got back on topic; if we don’t, along will come the Mods, & that will be that.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Yes so things that aren’t dogma can change, but dogma can’t change. But it can develop, but not evolve

The idea of when Christ was returning wasn’t dogma.

My thought is that His return was never expected to be immediate except (1) for those who were corrected by Peter and Paul, etc. and (2) insofar as it is always imminent.

“And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake!”

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thomas Aquinas was ignorant of many things too. If Jesus possessed all knowledge and was all compassionate, why did leave his followers ignorant of …] the cure for cancer and other diseases? Did he not know he could save tens of millions of innocent children over the next two millennia from horrific suffering from smallpox, bubonic palgue, cholera, typhoid, diphtheria, measles, tetanus, etc., or did he choose to allow these children to suffer? Only a sadist or a misanthrope would willfully withhold medical knowledge that could ease the pain of many. I think Jesus was neither a sadist nor a misanthrope.

StAnastasia

Hi StAnastasia,

I was surprised when you first posted this and I thought I should come back to it.

My surprise lies in the fact that this is a classic objection made by atheists. I was wondering why you understand Jesus’ earthly ministry in these terms when the same line of argumentation is oftentimes turned against faith in the existence of God. I thought that perhaps you would like to reconsider what you’ve said.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi StAnastasia,

I was surprised when you first posted this and I thought I should come back to it.

My surprise lies in the fact that this is a classic objection made by atheists. I was wondering why you understand Jesus’ earthly ministry in these terms when the same line of argumentation is oftentimes turned against faith in the existence of God. I thought that perhaps you would like to reconsider what you’ve said.

What needs reconsidering ? If an atheist tells you it’s midnight, does that mean the time cannot be midnight ?​

Who says something true, is unimportant to whether it is true - for whether something is true is not defined by sex, age, race, occupation, beliefs. Aristotle was not a Christian of any description - by Christian standards, he would count as rather immoral; yet this non-Christian was not beyond the pale for two men who are now Doctors of the Church. They didn’t consider who spoke, & disqualify them from consideration if they were not orthodox Catholics - they considered what was said. If an objection is a solid one, who made it first is entirely beside the point; what Christians have somehow to do, is give it proper consideration.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Thanks for the response, but it doesn’t get at my question. Let me try to ask a better question.

I think that today’s Catholic theologians, the Middle Age Catholic Theologians, and the Church Fathers would all agree that Christ’s Good News is unchanging - but they may disagree on theological details. For example, three theologians (of whatever age) can agree on the basics of Christ’s message, and agree that Truth is unchanging, but disagree on theological issues, whether it be Limbo or Purgatory, or something else. Do you believe that the early Church had all these answers and that our task is to preserve (or rediscover) the answers? Or were these things worked out by theologians over time? If the latter, how do we know which matters are closed to theological inquiry, and which are still in development? If the former, why was the original revelation not better preserved?

As I am sure you know from my other postings, I think that theologians can and should continue to develop Catholic theology. I think there are some issues that have been conclusively decided, but not very many. Even those are not “out of bounds” for academic thought and discussion, because re-examination of the known is a good way to proceed into the unknown. I ask my questions because I don’t really understand the other viewpoint - that theologians should not be working on developing the faith. I am hoping someone can explain that viewpoint to me.

I had brunch with the Archbishop of the Military Diocese last Sunday (I am active duty US Army). I asked about Papal Encyclicals - and he confirmed what I have been saying here. PEs are an operation of the Teaching Authority (Magisterium) of the Church. They are never superseded by subsequent PEs. They are authoritative and cannot be contested when they confirm established dogmas and clarify truths consistently held by the Church Fathers and Doctors.

The task of theologians is accomplished in cooperating with the Holy Spirit and His charisms for discovering afresh the Eternal Truths once delivered to the saints and developing contemporary applications of the Truth that serve in the mission of building up believers and extending the frontiers of the Rein of God on earth. Theology is a worthy servant but a dangerous master. Theology, like any other science, is animated by motives, attitudes, and pursuasions - spirit - and theologies that are not animated by the divine Paracletos become instruments of violence used against the Church.

The early Church had the answers in the charisms and manifestations of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit brings unlearned knowledge to the Church by means of grace. He brings healings, wisdom, miracles, visions, and other supernatural manifestations to guide the Church in her mission of evangelizing the nations. Doctrines such as Purgatory can and do mature (as well as fall into colloquial or euphemistic application apart from orthodox articulation) but they are not simply academically arrived at. St. John and St. Paul both exhort us to “test the spirits”. Jesus tells us that the Paracletos will “lead you into all truth, for He shall take what is mine and reveal it to you”. What people like StAnastasia and Gottle are doing is basing theology on material, intellectual and psychological approaches alone. They corrupt the process of exegesis by entering in to the sacred texts and pronouncments with “strange fire” - another spirit, and miss the anointing of the Paracletos so necessary to the work of interpretation.

Had Pius XII’s advice and liberal permissions issued in Divino Afflante Spiritu been followed, the great benefits of exegesis performed reverently by Spirit-led theologians would have been of inestimable value to the Church and the world. Instead, some imprudently approach the Sacred Texts with an alien spirit, another Christ, and of course do great damage to the faith of ordinary believers who are scandalized by the speculations of such ‘theologies’.

Theology must continue to develop the implications and applications of Divine Truth. It can never discover ‘new truths’ or evolve as we noted is the assertion of our liberal friends. Adoration of and close communion with the Holy Spirit are prerequisites for theology that accomplishes God’s purposes.

Merry Christmas to all,
Johnny

 

[StAnastasia]

Hi StAnastasia,I was surprised when you first posted this and I thought I should come back to it.
My surprise lies in the fact that this is a classic objection made by atheists. I was wondering why you understand Jesus’ earthly ministry in these terms when the same line of argumentation is oftentimes turned against faith in the existence of God. I thought that perhaps you would like to reconsider what you’ve said.

What does an atheist’s opinion have to do with it? Jesus the man was not omniscient, that’s all. That would be the wrong way to think about the Incarnation.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

My thought is that His return was never expected to be immediate except (1) for those who were corrected by Peter and Paul, etc. and (2) insofar as it is always imminent. “And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake!”

The end times have often been looked for by the gullible, especially around millennial turnings or in times of stress.

 

[StAnastasia]

If you can’t see a difference between what theologians do, & what Popes do, I can’t make you. Let me put this as simply as I can: Popes have one function in the Church, & theologians, another. Both are forms of service to Christ. Christ is ultimate - not the Pope.

So are you saying that if a pope has a bad day and condemns heliocentrism or biblical interpretation this is not binding on us all?