Something I always wondered about Catholics

[Crepusculum]

I was under the impression that Jewish tradition acknowledges Jesus as a student of Rabbi Hillel, albeit just a man. Is that not the case?

As to the topic starter’s question, I can’t speak for the entire body of believers, but I treat the naming of priests the same way I treat Doctors - if it’s in conversation with them, I just call them “doctor”/“father”, and if I’m talking about them, I use their title + surname. I hadn’t noticed the “our lord”/“the lord” difference between us and our protesting brethren, but I had noticed we tend to call Him Christ more often than Jesus, while they tend (generalising of course) to call Him Jesus more than Christ. Not reading anything into that, just a curious observation.

Anyway, hope that helps - we can agree to focus on what we agree on, which is God, the father, the God of Abram and Moshe and a great many other things besides I’m sure but that’s the most important one.

Shalom.

 

[LaMar]

I hesitate to jump into this, but O well, here goes…

It might surprise you to learn that I personally do not believe Jesus ever existed (based on the extreme lack of historical and archaelogical evidence). So in such a case, there is no way he can be my “lord”.

There’s no more evidence for Jesus as a historical character than there is for Moses, Abraham, Hercules, Ernest Everhard or Josef K; but (this is important) these individuals do exist as literary characters.

In that sense, they can indeed become my Lord(s) (rebbe?) in that they teach me things which are important, they reveal essential truths about the human condition, and they help me transcend the basic, carnal, material pressures which human beings are forced to contend with. They inspire me and others to help build up civilization, rather than tear it down.

In that regard, they’re more real than, say, my 5th great grandfather, who did exist, but who nobody has ever heard of and didn’t leave anything substantive behind.

 

[CarolsDaughter]

I hesitate to jump into this, but O well, here goes…

There’s no more evidence for Jesus as a historical character than there is for Moses, Abraham, Hercules, Ernest Everhard or Josef K; but (this is important) these individuals do exist as literary characters.

In that sense, they can indeed become my Lord(s) (rebbe?) in that they teach me things which are important, they reveal essential truths about the human condition, and they help me transcend the basic, carnal, material pressures which human beings are forced to contend with. They inspire me and others to help build up civilization, rather than tear it down.

In that regard, they’re more real than, say, my 5th great grandfather, who did exist, but who nobody has ever heard of and didn’t leave anything substantive behind.

You make some good points, I agree. There is much that can be learned from historical figures, even if they existed only in stories or legends.

What fascinated me about the Jesus character is that much of what he is reported to have said actually originated in Jewish rabbinical and other writings, esp. the Kabbalah. Since Galilee was a “hotbed” of Kabbalah study in his day, it makes sense to me that he would have been familiar with it.

 

[LaMar]

You make some good points, I agree. There is much that can be learned from historical figures, even if they existed only in stories or legends.

What fascinated me about the Jesus character is that much of what he is reported to have said actually originated in Jewish rabbinical and other writings, esp. the Kabbalah. Since Galilee was a “hotbed” of Kabbalah study in his day, it makes sense to me that he would have been familiar with it.

I’ll be honest and admit I don’t know much about Kabbalah. I know that Madonna studies or practices it, so it must be sorta cool, or sexy, or nice to dance to, but other than that I don’t know what it entails. (Sorry for the little joke, if there are any Kabbalah adherents here, no disrespect intended).

It’s interesting what we see when we read the New Testament. Our interpretation is based on our background. When I read the New Testament, I see a lot of Neo-Platonism. The idea of an eternal soul. The duality (and opposition) of matter and spirit. That sort of thing. Saul of Tarsus was a pretty clever guy who was obviously well read. It seems like he wanted to propagate a reformed reading of Judaism with some Greek philosophy thrown in. Not being a Jew or knowing much about Judaism, I just pick up the parts I’m familiar with.

To answer your original question, in little Mormon communities we called our leader “the bishop”. It was never without the definite article. What this means might be fodder for a linguist or semiologist. I don’t think Catholics call their priest “The father”. For them, it’s “let’s go talk to father” and for us it’s “let’s go talk to the bishop”.

 

[latin_rite]

Who are you referring to? God? Or Jesus? Because, you know, I don’t regard them as one and the same (chas ve’sholom). I realize you do, but Jews don’t.

And don’t you find the “whether you like it or not” comment rather adversarial? I would not push my beliefs on you, why do the same to me?

It might surprise you to learn that I personally do not believe Jesus ever existed (based on the extreme lack of historical and archaelogical evidence). So in such a case, there is no way he can be my “lord”.

if you thought it was, i sorry… and on the “based on the extreme lack of historical and archaelogical evidence” thing.
There is just as much of historical and archaelogical evidence to support Jesus as there is supporting God.

 

[latin_rite]

It’s interesting what we see when we read the New Testament. Our interpretation is based on our background. When I read the New Testament, I see a lot of Neo-Platonism. The idea of an eternal soul. The duality (and opposition) of matter and spirit. That sort of thing. Saul of Tarsus was a pretty clever guy who was obviously well read. It seems like he wanted to propagate a reformed reading of Judaism with some Greek philosophy thrown in. Not being a Jew or knowing much about Judaism, I just pick up the parts I’m familiar with.

Do you actually understand anything about Christianity at all?

 

[CarolsDaughter]

I find the Christian testament to be a very Jewish work, but that does not mean it is acceptable for Jews on a religious level.

For instance, in Revelation/Apocalypse, where it mentions the number of the AntiChrist as being the code of a man, that is the ancient Kabbalistic Jewish practice of gematria…finding hidden meaning in numerical codes based on the Hebrew alphabet. Few Christians (or Jews!) realize that.

 

[peary]

I’m pretty knowledgeable of (traditional) Catholic beliefs and practices, but one thing always stumped me, and I guess this the best place to ask.

Why do Catholics refer to priests as just “Father”? As in, “Let’s see what Father says”. Doesn’t the priest use his last name too? And how do you then distinguish between two or more different priests?

I ran into this problem in another way, because my mother was recently in a (Catholic) hospital for a month before her passing.

The (Catholic) nurses kept referring to my mom’s doctor as “Doctor” (no last name.)

Also, why do Catholics refer to God or Jesus as “Our Lord” as opposed to the Protestant or Jewish “The Lord”? It always sounded to me, esp. when I was little (I grew up in an immigrant Jewish and Catholic neighborhood), as if Catholics felt God or Jesus belonged only to them, hence the use of the term, “our”!

Can anyone give some background or insight to this?

**The use of ‘Father’ is a title of honor, just as it was in the Bible. Even Paul refers to himself as ‘father’ of his spiritual children or ‘flock’ of believers. Priests have had the connotation for over a thousand years or more because of their unique role in the life of the parish whom he serves.

You know the difference to whom you are addressing as ‘father’ because the priests are different individuals, just as doctors are different individuals.

I think it is Catholics who actually believe in a real personal relationship with Christ, since Catholics seem to be the only ones who refer to Him as “Our Lord” or “my Lord.”**

 

[justinthemartyr]

I’m pretty knowledgeable of (traditional) Catholic beliefs and practices, but one thing always stumped me, and I guess this the best place to ask.

Why do Catholics refer to priests as just “Father”? As in, “Let’s see what Father says”. Doesn’t the priest use his last name too? And how do you then distinguish between two or more different priests?

I ran into this problem in another way, because my mother was recently in a (Catholic) hospital for a month before her passing.

The (Catholic) nurses kept referring to my mom’s doctor as “Doctor” (no last name.)

Also, why do Catholics refer to God or Jesus as “Our Lord” as opposed to the Protestant or Jewish “The Lord”? It always sounded to me, esp. when I was little (I grew up in an immigrant Jewish and Catholic neighborhood), as if Catholics felt God or Jesus belonged only to them, hence the use of the term, “our”!

Can anyone give some background or insight to this?

we no longer have that situation, as we now have a Monsignor and a Father in our parish.

 

[ibkc]

Do you actually understand anything about Christianity at all?

No, he doesn’t, but he has convinced himself that he does. The way he garbles history is hilarious, too.

LaMar, Neoplatonism could not have been an influence on Paul of Tarsus and the other authors of the books of the New Testament because Neoplatonism didn’t exist when the books of the New Testament were written. In fact Neoplatonism was devised by Plotinus in the 3rd century. Greek philosophy does inform Christianity but it is more Aristotelian.

 

[LaMar]

No, he doesn’t, but he has convinced himself that he does. The way he garbles history is hilarious, too.

LaMar, Neoplatonism could not have been an influence on Paul of Tarsus and the other authors of the books of the New Testament because Neoplatonism didn’t exist when the books of the New Testament were written. In fact Neoplatonism was devised by Plotinus in the 3rd century. Greek philosophy does inform Christianity but it is more Aristotelian.

Really? How is it “Aristotelian”? Care to give some examples?

etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-64
Saint Augustine asserted that Neo-Platonism pos-
sessed all spiritual truths except that of the Incarnation.

Read the entire article. It’s written from a Catholic perspective so
you might consider it “approved”

Here’s another one:

*Neoplatonism would then not have begun with Plotinus. However, it is not clear that Xenocrates’ idea of salvation involved the individual; it is quite possible that he was referring to a unified human nature in an abstract sense. In any case, the early Hermetic-Gnostic tradition is certainly to an extent Platonic, and later Gnosticism and Christian Logos theology markedly so. If an intellectual reply to a general yearning for personal salvation is what characterizes Neoplatonism, then the highly intellectual Gnostics and Christians of the Late Hellenistic era must be given the title of Neoplatonists. However, if we are to be rigorous and define Neoplatonism as the synthesis of various more or less ‘Platonistic’ ideas into a grand expression of Platonic philosophy, then Plotinus must be considered the founder of Neoplatonism. Yet we must not forget that these Platonizing Christian, Gnostic, Jewish, and other ‘pagan’ thinkers provided the necessary speculative material to make this synthesis possible. *

72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:KFaG4_IA3xwJ:www.iep.utm.edu/n/neoplato.htm+St.+Paul+Neoplatonism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

It took me about two minutes to find this. You should at least google stuff before you declare yourself an authority on something, brother.

 

[ibkc]

Really? How is it “Aristotelian”? Care to give some examples?

Sure. The doctrines of the Real Presence and transubstantiation utilize the Aristotelian concepts of accident vs. substance. That is one of the deepest cores of Catholic Christian belief.

etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-64
Saint Augustine asserted that Neo-Platonism pos-
sessed all spiritual truths except that of the Incarnation.

Read the entire article. It’s written from a Catholic perspective so you might consider it “approved”

Nice stuff; it echoes the themes I studied last year in my Aesthetics and the Renaissance class. However, nothing in it refutes my statement to you.
Neoplatonism did not exist when the New Testament was written. The article you link to backs that up. Also, St. Augustine was certainly an admirer of Plato, but he was not an author of the New Testament. Sorry.

 

[LaMar]

Sure. The doctrines of the Real Presence and transubstantiation utilize the Aristotelian concepts of accident vs. substance. That is one of the deepest cores of Catholic Christian belief.

Got a source for this? Forgive me, but it ain’t so just because you say it’s so.

Nice stuff; it echoes the themes I studied last year in my Aesthetics and the Renaissance class. However, nothing in it refutes my statement to you.
Neoplatonism did not exist when the New Testament was written. The article you link to backs that up. Also, St. Augustine was certainly an admirer of Plato, but he was not an author of the New Testament. Sorry.

Neoplatonism would then not have begun with Plotinus. However, it is not clear that Xenocrates’ idea of salvation involved the individual; it is quite possible that he was referring to a unified human nature in an abstract sense. In any case, the early Hermetic-Gnostic tradition is certainly to an extent Platonic, and later Gnosticism and Christian Logos theology markedly so. If an intellectual reply to a general yearning for personal salvation is what characterizes Neoplatonism, then the highly intellectual Gnostics and Christians of the Late Hellenistic era must be given the title of Neoplatonists. However, if we are to be rigorous and define Neoplatonism as the synthesis of various more or less ‘Platonistic’ ideas into a grand expression of Platonic philosophy, then Plotinus must be considered the founder of Neoplatonism. Yet we must not forget that these Platonizing Christian, Gnostic, Jewish, and other ‘pagan’ thinkers provided the necessary speculative material to make this synthesis possible. *

iep.utm.edu/n/neoplato.htm

You seem to have forgotten the substance of that article.

No one who is familiar with philosophy would claim that Plotnius “devised” Neo-Platonism, and no one who is familiar with Christianity would assume that “it’s Aristotelian” without posting some references.

I could say Christianity was “informed by trout fishing in the Rockies”. Without explaining specifics, this statement is meaningless.

I like this stuff, so if you feel I’m wrong, let’s have a real discussion. Post sources and prove your points. I’d love to learn more about your point of view.

LaMar

 

[ibkc]

Got a source for this? Forgive me, but it ain’t so just because you say it’s so.

Last year I took a master’s level course on the influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity, and its culmination in the aesthetic theories of the Renaissance.
Happy reading, kiddo.

newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm

You seem to have forgotten the substance of that article.

No one who is familiar with philosophy would claim that Plotnius “devised” Neo-Platonism, and no one who is familiar with Christianity would assume that “it’s Aristotelian”.

I will give you that Platonism was a bigger influence on the early Church, and Aristotelian thought came into its own later on, in the middle ages. Still, to call it Neoplatonism in the NT is not correct. You’ll have lose the attitude before I’ll discuss anything else with you. If you want to trade snark, find someone else to indulge you.

 

[LaMar]

Last year I took a master’s level course on the influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity, and its culmination in the aesthetic theories of the Renaissance.
Happy reading, kiddo.

newadvent.org/cathen/01096c.htm

I will give you that Platonism was a bigger influence on the early Church, and Aristotelian thought came into its own later on, in the middle ages. Still, to call it Neoplatonism in the NT is not correct. You’ll have lose the attitude before I’ll discuss anything else with you. If you want to trade snark, find someone else to indulge you.

If you’re an authority then post your cv and write an article. I’d love to read it. As far as “attitude” goes, anyone who peruses your contributions in the last 15 minutes can make his/her own decisions about who’s got the biggest chip on his shoulder.

Take Care,

LaMar

 

[ibkc]

LaMar - more on accident/substance concepts in the Eucharist.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

The application of the foregoing to the Eucharist is an easy matter. First of all the notion of conversion is verified in the Eucharist, not only in general, but in all its essential details. For we have the two extremes of conversion, namely, bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem. Furthermore, the intimate connection between the cessation of one extreme and the appearance of the other seems to be preserved by the fact, that both events are the results, not of two independent processes, as, e.g. annihilation and creation, but of one single act, since, according to the purpose of the Almighty, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ.

I am not an authority and I do not claim to be one. But I do understand my own religion on a level better than a cynical quasi-Mormon.

 

[LaMar]

LaMar - more on accident/substance concepts in the Eucharist.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

I am not an authority and I do not claim to be one. But I do understand my own religion on a level better than a cynical quasi-Mormon.

Whoops! There’s that snark again.

I’m reading that article now. Interesting. I don’t know how it ties into Aristotle though. I’d bet you could explain it to me right now. Why don’t you? Let’s have an interesting discussion.

 

[ibkc]

I’m reading that article now. Interesting. I don’t know how it ties into Aristotle though. I’d bet you could explain it to me right now. Why don’t you? Let’s have an interesting discussion.

I have to go to bed now, but maybe this site will help you.

aquinasonline.com/index.html

A whole site devoted to St. Thomas Aquinas, a follower of Aristotle, and his writings and theories, which had an enormous influence on Catholic (and therefore, Christian, because this was well pre-reformation) thought.

 

[LaMar]

I have to go to bed now, but maybe this site will help you.

aquinasonline.com/index.html

A whole site devoted to St. Thomas Aquinas, a follower of Aristotle, and his writings and theories, which had an enormous influence on Catholic (and therefore, Christian, because this was well pre-reformation) thought.

I’m actually very familiar with Thomas Aquinas. I’m was hoping for something original, but that’s O.K.

Let’s recap. First you jump in, tell me I don’t know anything about anything, and make some statements.

Second, you admit you’re wrong, but insist I still don’t know anything about anything, and throw in the fact that you’re in some post-graduate program and that you know everything about what I don’t know about, even though you just got done admitting I was correct originally.

After that, you tell me I have a bad attitude, all while talking down to me, calling me “kid”, but lambasting me for not being humble.

Even though you’re qualified to ta at any public university (if you’re in a masters program, it’s a given), you say you are “not an authority and don’t claim to be one”. Actually, you had claimed to be one immediately before, but who’s counting?

None of this makes any sense, but it is fairly consistent with nearly every conversation you have here, and not just with me. I just got done looking up previous conversations you’ve had with others. They all seem to follow this same pattern.

If this is the sort of mentality that the Roman Catholic church instills in it’s graduate students at [whatever Catholic university you supposedly study philosophy at] then you shouldn’t wonder why I don’t care too much about it.

Take Care,

LaMar

 

[ronyodish]

As for Josephus, I am quite familiar with his writings, I own a copy of the Works of Josephus. He only gives one reference to a “Christus” and some scholars feel his one reference had a political rationale having to do with the Romans (I forget the details, its been a long time since I’ve had reason to read him.)

CarolsDaughter,

Read this here (ch. 3, par. 3):​

1. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

---

There is some commentary on the above paragraph on this site:​

It is unlikely that a pious Jew like Flavius Josephus would have written that Jesus ‘appeared to them on the third day, living again’; consequently, there has been a lot of scholarly debate about the explanation of this strange remark. Some argued that we had to admit that Flavius Josephus had become a Christian; others maintained that it was made up by some Byzantine monk who copied the Jewish Antiquities. The latter explanation can be ruled out because a more or less identical text had been found in an Arabian translation of a part of the Jewish Antiquities. In 1991, John Meier has suggested that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus, but that the text was glossed by a Christian author. His reconstruction of the text is as follows:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

Even in this reconstruction, this text is of monumental importance. Not only is Flavius Josephus the only first century non-Christian writer mentioning Jesus’ life, teachings and death independently of the of the gospels, but he also suggests that Jesus was innocent. A straightforward report would have told that Pilate executed the man from Nazareth because he was considered to be the king of the Jews. But instead of naming the accusation, the Jewish historian names the accusers. Since he usually delights in writing about the deserved punishment of rebels and pretenders, the fact that he does not inform us of the charge, means that he thought that Jesus was innocent.​

So, whether or not Josephus wrote that line about the Resurrection, the main point here is that Josephus affirms the historical existence of Jesus.

God bless,

Rony