Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

[Tantum_ergo]

just accepting it as a matter of submission to authority which is a very unsatisfying way of applying reasoning and logic

It really does appear to me then that there is a huge problem with those who equate submission to authority (The Church) to a lack of reasoning and logic, as though submission is inherently an unreasonable, illogical, even stupid and lazy thing to do, and that the only thing that reason and logic can lead to is ‘independence’ rather than submission. Is there any person really so sure of himself to find the Church’s reasoning and logic, its 2000 year tradition, inferior to him because he thinks that he has used ‘reason and logic’ while the Church has not, or that his reason/logic is better than that of thousands of millions of souls put together?

You see, I’m just one fallible woman myself. But I’m not claiming that my ‘submission to authority’ (which I myself find a very satisfactory way of applying reasoning and logic, by the grace of God) to the position of the church on its inability to ordain women to the priesthood is ‘just’ the view of one fallible woman. Thus, there is no validity (IMO) to the idea that you (not the personal you) might think A, I think B, and that since we are just individuals, either one of us is as likely to be right or wrong about the matte–not when one of us is presenting the view from the position of agreement with the magesterium of the Church.

It’s the view of the magesterium (which does then include women, I’m participating in the magesterium in my submission, after all). I may not understand the teaching to fullness (but then again I don’t fully understand the nature of God, the Trinity, and a host of other teachings–no human being fully understands it all), but that doesn’t make my submission to authority a ‘lack of reasoning and logic’.

But it isn’t easy, certainly. To me, a lack of obedience characterizes most if not all of us today, me not least, and I will pray that all of us find God’s grace to learn the value of humility, submission, obedience and faith (and to understand that these do not contradict reason and logic but instead illuminate them).

 

[flazor1]

I agree. That is why I always emphasize that I am representing the teachings of some of the church’s most recognized scritpure scholars.

I am following the church, its recognized scholars, and its formal documents on biblical interpretation, such as Dei Verbum.

I’ve heard this formulation from dissenting Catholics forever: “I agree with the church,” but always with the condition that by “the church” is meant her “recognized scholars,” (as opposed to, say the Pope), “Recognized scholars” can include any number of unorthodox, innovating theologians. The authority of the Church does not reside in her theologians. At best, they assist the bishops, at worst they shipwreck the faith.

You then contradict rpp and state, in effect, that “many parts of the gospels teach truths using non-historical symbolic literary forms”, specificaly dismissing the Luke nativity story as clear fiction. Can you quote me the section of Dei Verbum that says Luke’s account is clear fiction, or, at least, that states the Church’s position on Luke is that it is nonhistorical?

To not call some parts fiction is, at best, an indication of very poor catechisis. The historicity of the infancy narratives is in no way a part of dogma or doctrine.

Only if you want to ignore the creeds, which are fairly explicit that Christ was born of a Virgin. The thing is, we don’t know what you’re referring to when you say “dogma or doctrine.” In the mixed-up church of the past 40 years, that could mean almost anything, from socialism to gay marriage to God being a woman, and all supported by academics with miles of letters after their names. What are the important dogmas and doctrines you do hold to, for example?

Having the humility to learn from those who are true authorities is what I would stress.

By true authorities, does that mean the “recognized scholars”?

 

[fix]

It really does appear to me then that there is a huge problem with those who equate submission to authority (The Church) to a lack of reasoning and logic, as though submission is inherently an unreasonable, illogical, even stupid and lazy thing to do, and that the only thing that reason and logic can lead to is ‘independence’ rather than submission. Is there any person really so sure of himself to find the Church’s reasoning and logic, its 2000 year tradition, inferior to him because he thinks that he has used ‘reason and logic’ while the Church has not, or that his reason/logic is better than that of thousands of millions of souls put together?

I agree and I would ask where does this reasoning lead to?

This priest points out the problem of such logic:

After all, either one believes, or not, in the divine guarantee behind the Church’s teaching. If one does not, one has not the Catholic faith. If one does, then to take a stand implying doubt or rejection of that divine guarantee, is to allow into one’s mind opinions incompatible with those that are already present there. It is to become a house divided against itself.

A person faced with conflicting beliefs or opinions within himself must choose which is to prevail. He may choose to conclude: since Christ stands behind the Church, in major points of her teaching and authority, then my mind, inclining to a dissenting position, must be mistaken. There is nothing unreasonable, nor should there be anything humiliating, in this conclusion: “It seems that I must be mistaken”. The possibility of coming to such a conclusion must always be before the man who acknowledges the fallibility of conscience[2].

But if he rejects this possibility and says, “No; I am not mistaken”, he must necessarily conclude: “then the Church is mistaken”. With that, his faith in Christ’s presence in the Church begins to collapse.
cormacburke.or.ke/book/authority_and_freedom_in_the_church/chapter6.html

 

[patg]

…Can you quote me the section of Dei Verbum that says Luke’s account is clear fiction, or, at least, that states the Church’s position on Luke is that it is nonhistorical?

I can certainly quote the section that says: "For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. "

Now you will ask just how do we apply this to the infancy stories? Well here is how:

An infancy narrative is a kind of story that we find in scripture, both in the old and new testaments, as well as in the culture in which our biblical ancestors lived, but not in our own culture. Because the literary form *infancy narrative *is unfamiliar to us we might inadvertently misunderstand what we are reading. As is true of every story in the bible, we must correctly understand the literary form we are reading in order to understand what the author intends to say.

The author of an infancy narrative is *not *responding to the question “How can I tell the story of this person’s birth exactly as it occurred?” but to the question “How can I tell this story so that the reader understands just how great this person became?” An infancy narrative is not written from a point of view contemporary with its subject’s birth; it is written in hindsight in the light of subsequent events to teach what came to be known about the person over time. The birth narratives of Jesus were written after the resurrection, after the disciples had come to understand Jesus’ true identity.

Once we understand the point of view of the author of an infancy narrative, we can’t help but ask, “Are infancy narratives historically accurate?” The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke have a historical core. However, the author is not trying to describe events exactly as they occurred, as would a historian. Rather, the author is trying to describe events so that the listeners, or readers, understand the significance of events within the context of their lives.

It’s interesting to note that when we read of the origins of Alexander the Great or the Caesars or the Pharoahs, we casually pass over, with a knowing smile, the stories of divine origins, celestial events that accompanied their births, geologic upheavels, omens and portents because we know these were fiction meant to dramatize the importance of these individuals. We know that these “infancy narratives” were common then and mostly unused in our enlightened time. That people then and now recognize them as fiction even though the fiction was teaching something very important. Then we read nearly identical stories written during the same era by similar Greek oriented writers and the literary form screams “Infancy Narrative”. However, the name “Jesus” is in there so we mysteriously foget everything we know and say that this must be literal history! And if that’s not bad enough, we also ignore the impossible to reconcile date conflicts, the significant “historical” events for which there is no record, and the references to Jewish rituals which did not exist.

Only if you want to ignore the creeds, which are fairly explicit that Christ was born of a Virgin.

Saying that the narratives are fiction does not deny this teaching

The thing is, we don’t know what you’re referring to when you say “dogma or doctrine.”

Actually, that is exactly what I was wondering about your statements. Just which dogma or doctrine states that the infancy narratives are literal historical accounts of what happened and that, as a catholic, one must believe this is so? I understand that there are no such doctines or dogmas and documents such as Dei Verbum state that the correct literary form must be considered when snalyzing scripture.

By true authorities, does that mean the “recognized scholars”?

Are there better authorities? Most popes have not been scripture scholars - that is exactly why we have the pontifical biblical commission and its scholars.

I think we have some confusion here in equating the truth of the teachings of the church with the literal historic truth of the events in the gospels. There is no requirement that the truths be taught with only literal history - many truths are taught quite well with fiction and denying the absolute historicity of the gospels in no way reduces the status of the truths contained in the doctrine or dogma of the church.

 

[rpp]

This thread has been very interesting. We see in spades the the terrible damage that dissidents have done right here among these posts.

Cardinal Bertone is right. Rahter than humble obediance to the church, the dissidents have created an atmosphere where these dissidents are the “thinking” Catholics and those who conform their lives and minds to Church teachings are therefore stupid.

I will repeat what I said before that was dimissed by another poster, but is the essence of a true Catholic mind, the mind of a true “thinking” Catholic, not the arrogant bluster of a pseudo-Catholic.

If a person’s conscience, feelings or intellect lead them to disagree with Church teachings, the problem is probably not with the Church. There have been times I have disgreed with the Church. When that has happened, I realized that it is **I **who must conform to the Church and to God, not the other way around.

If, for example, you think that the Church should consider ordaining women as priestesses, or regret that women are not “represented” in the Magesterium, then you are not conforming yourself to the teachings of the Church.

If you maintain that the historical accounts of the life of Christ are fiction, you are not not conforming your mind to the teachings of the Church.

If you think God is “morally responsible” for executing judgment on, say, the Egyptions when he lead Moses to free the Jews, you are not conforming yourself to the teachings of the Church.

If someone holds these or similar views, and they refuse to change, there is only one question. Why continue to claim to be what you are not; why continue to claim to be Catholic?

 

[flazor1]

I can certainly quote the section that says: "For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. "

Now you will ask just how do we apply this to the infancy stories?

No, I wasn’t going to ask that. I would have probably asked, given that Luke’s stated purpose to Theophilus was to compile a narrative of events (i.e., historical events), just as they were delivered by the earliest eyewitnesses, (e.g., Mary), and ministers of the word, in the form of an orderly account, (as opposed to a fabulous infancy narrative), so that Theophilus “may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed,” (Luke 1), given that, how do you reason to a conclusion that Luke was resorted to an infancy narrative simply to make the point that Christ was an important figure? That Jesus of Nazareth, somehow, managed to get born? How do you determine that Luke isn’t being historical, when he just got done saying that he is?

The author of an infancy narrative is *not *responding to the question “How can I tell the story of this person’s birth exactly as it occurred?” but to the question “How can I tell this story so that the reader understands just how great this person became?”

But you are mistaken. Luke did state he was trying to answer the question “how can I tell this story exactly as it occurred?”

The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke have a historical core. However, the author is not trying to describe events exactly as they occurred, as would a historian. Rather, the author is trying to describe events so that the listeners, or readers, understand the significance of events within the context of their lives.

How can the reader understand the significance of events when people like you are saying the events didn’t happen?

we casually pass over, with a knowing smile, the stories of divine origins,

I know that “knowing smile” oh so well.

Just which dogma or doctrine states that the infancy narratives are literal historical accounts of what happened and that, as a catholic, one must believe this is so?

“He was born of the Virgin Mary and became Man.”

I understand that there are no such doctines or dogmas and documents such as Dei Verbum state that the correct literary form must be considered when snalyzing scripture.

Most of us already knew DV said that. The issue is the way you are applying it, which is to deny the historicity of what Luke has written, even though DV readily acknowledges that some texts are historical. What’s your criterion for excluding Luke, since NT scholars have recogninzed for 20 centuries that he was the most careful historian in the Scriptures?

Are there better authorities?

Than scripture scholars? Yes. You may not have heard that the Church’s teaching authority is supernatrual, not natural.

Most popes have not been scripture scholars - that is exactly why we have the pontifical biblical commission and its scholars.

The last two have been scripture scholars, and they didn’t have any problem recognizing that Luke is historical.

There is no requirement that the truths be taught with only literal history - many truths are taught quite well with fiction and denying the absolute historicity of the gospels in no way reduces the status of the truths contained in the doctrine or dogma of the church.

I have heard this and heard this. Why don’t you specify what the truth is that is taught by means of the fictional nonhistorical infancy narrative of Luke?

 

[flazor1]

To not call some parts fiction is, at best, an indication of very poor catechisis. The historicity of the infancy narratives is in no way a part of dogma or doctrine…

It is a sign of deeper understanding and significant study…

I believe that the authors of the gospels were skilled writers who used a number of literary form to teach the truths they wanted to pass on. This can only help one get closer to God and the church. I encourage you to do some reading - let me know if you need a few suggestions…

Having the humility to learn from those who are true authorities is what I would stress.

These excerpts sound very much like what I have come to equate with the inner overconfidence of dissenting Catholics.

1. You equate your insight into the “true” meaning of the Scriptures with deeper understanding and significant study, whereas, by contrast, our understanding is shallow and uneducated. You make this assumption solely on the basis of our theological opinions. You don’t actually know what we’ve read.
2. You assume we are ignorant for lack of reading, and, if you are forced to admit that we have read, then it’s done us no good because we haven’t read the right books. (For a list of the right ones, we need you.) Again, you make this assumption solely on our theological point of view. Orthodox, non-dissenting = ignorant and uninformed. You don’t actually know what we’ve read.
3. You identify the “true authorities” in the Church with scripture scholars and academics, a class of persons who have created ten times as much muddle and mess as anything they have ever cleared up. And a class of persons to whom Jesus, in neither his historical nor his fictional statements in the Gospels, ever committed a single particle of divine authority.

 

[rpp]

These excerpts sound very much like what I have come to equate with the inner overconfidence of dissenting Catholics.

1. You equate your insight into the “true” meaning of the Scriptures with deeper understanding and significant study, whereas, by contrast, our understanding is shallow and uneducated. You make this assumption solely on the basis of our theological opinions. You don’t actually know what we’ve read.
2. You assume we are ignorant for lack of reading, and, if you are forced to admit that we have read, then it’s done us no good because we haven’t read the right books. (For a list of the right ones, we need you.) Again, you make this assumption solely on our theological point of view. Orthodox, non-dissenting = ignorant and uninformed. You don’t actually know what we’ve read.
3. You identify the “true authorities” in the Church with scripture scholars and academics, a class of persons who have created ten times as much muddle and mess as anything they have ever cleared up. And a class of persons to whom Jesus, in neither his historical nor his fictional statements in the Gospels, ever committed a single particle of divine authority.

Considering what has been posted so far in this discussion, I find I must agree with your conclusions, Flazor1.

The essence of dissident Biblical scholarship is to reject more than 1900 years of scholarship in favor of what one wants to hear. My guess, and I may be wrong here, is that such people find some comfort in thinking the Bible cannot be believed or is somehow inaccurate. It is very hard to hear some of the things in Holy Scripture; it requires Faith, a virtue sadly lacking today. That, unfortunately is one of the many dangers of dissident theology, telling people what they want to heart rather than what they need to hear.

I would say the use of the word “fiction” with regard to the Gospels, as it has been used here, is pejoritive and deeply insulting to any thinking Catholic. While I would not want to characterize someone who chooses to use that word, but to say they are maintaining error would be accurate. It matters not how many theologians they can line up to back up what they say, they will not be able to use the Doctors of Church like St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alfonsis Ligouri or St. Athanasias.

The logical conclusion to that line of reasoning is that the Bible is a interesting, if dated, book of ancient fantasies which has little relevance to the modern world. Thus, by extension, the Church is uneccesary and theology can be whatever makes us feel good.

This is one of the many problems with dissident theology, when you examine it logically and thoughtfully, the logic fails. To avoid these logical traps, there are many arbitrary and subjective limits imposed. For example, the claim the infancy narritives are not historically accurate. Yet, in order to maintain a claim to hold to Church teachings, one must acknowledge that Jesus born of a virgin, performed miracles and was raised from the dead. But if you deny the hisoricity of one part, you must, to maintain logical consistancy, reject the historicity of the whole of the author’s work. There is no loigic to this. This interpretation is not either for or from the “thinking” Catholic, as some have asserted, but is rather for and from an entirely different group altogether.

When you stay with established interpretation, there is a perfect logical consistancy which when carried to it’s logical conclusion reconfirms the initial premise and always makes sense. That is one of the great beauties of Catholic Theology that differentiates ir from not only all Protestant theology, but from all other religions as well.

Faith and Reason are not in conflict. Catholic Theology is about Faith **and **Reason, not Reason (or Faith for that matter) alone. Error can easily occur when there is too much emphasis on Reason. Erring on the side of Faith is generally safer, though not a guarantee.

Sometimes it is even useful to use the “ignore” function of this forum.

 

[rpp]

It’s interesting to note that when we read of the origins of Alexander the Great or the Caesars or the Pharoahs, we casually pass over, with a knowing smile, the stories of divine origins, celestial events that accompanied their births, geologic upheavels, omens and portents because we know these were fiction meant to dramatize the importance of these individuals. We know that these “infancy narratives” were common then and mostly unused in our enlightened time. That people then and now recognize them as fiction even though the fiction was teaching something very important. Then we read nearly identical stories written during the same era by similar Greek oriented writers and the literary form screams “Infancy Narrative”. However, the name “Jesus” is in there so we mysteriously foget everything we know and say that this must be literal history! And if that’s not bad enough, we also ignore the impossible to reconcile date conflicts, the significant “historical” events for which there is no record, and the references to Jewish rituals which did not exist.

Here you make a very critical error in both logic and faith. You cannot compare the writings of Roman historians like Tacitus or Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century, with Holy Scripture.

No historian was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote. The Holy Spirit preserves the inerrancy of Scipture.

To defend your interpretation of “Holy Scripture as Fiction” as you have requires that you have equate the quality of authorship with that of every other documents other non-inspired sources. This, by it’s natures, rejects the power of God to preseve His Message and to accurately give us the Deposit of Faith. To deny the power of God is, well, questionable at best.

This is one of the common failings of the modern use of the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation. This is why to rely on it soley, or at least heavily, has serious shortcomings. What is worse, this form of interpretation, when used as you seems to have, puts the eternal souls of many at great peril.

 

[patg]

This thread has been very interesting. We see in spades the the terrible damage that dissidents have done right here among these posts.

Damage? Like keeping people in the church because the scriptures finally make sense?

Cardinal Bertone is right. Rahter than humble obediance to the church, the dissidents have created an atmosphere where these dissidents are the “thinking” Catholics and those who conform their lives and minds to Church teachings are therefore stupid.

Nonsense - all I have said is that the church allows for the thinking I have proposed - you are also free to consider the literalist approach and the church does not restrict or condemn either of us - do you have a problem with that?

I will repeat what I said before that was dimissed by another poster, but is the essence of a true Catholic mind, the mind of a true “thinking” Catholic, not the arrogant bluster of a pseudo-Catholic.

I will repeat what I said before - the church in no way requires you to believe that everything in the gospels is literal history.

If, for example, you think that the Church should consider ordaining women as priestesses, or regret that women are not “represented” in the Magesterium, then you are not conforming yourself to the teachings of the Church.

I accept that with no argument whatsoever.

If you maintain that the historical accounts of the life of Christ are fiction, you are not not conforming your mind to the teachings of the Church.

That is total nonsense. The gospels are not even close to “historical accounts of the life of Christ”. To say so is to demonstrate a misunderstanding of what a “gospel” is and to assume the church requires belief in something it does not.

If you think God is “morally responsible” for executing judgment on, say, the Egyptions when he lead Moses to free the Jews, you are not conforming yourself to the teachings of the Church.

I never said I believed that - I was making a few observations on things authors have attributed to God in the interest of a discusision. Where does the church teach that God is not responsible for those actions?

If someone holds these or similar views, and they refuse to change, there is only one question. Why continue to claim to be what you are not; why continue to claim to be Catholic?

Show me where my understanding of the gospels is not Catholic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We have not a single woman in a position of magesterial power, authority, or even (name removed by moderator)ut? Totally Asinine.

Not true. Pontifical councils and committees that prepare studies and reports for the Holy Father include women, indeed are sometimes chaired by women.

But look carefully at what you wrote. Power? Authority? It would be well to remember how the Holy Father refers to himself: “Benedict, Servant of the Servants of God.” It ain’t about power. And the question of authority was settled by the One who washed the feet of His disciples.

 

[rpp]

Show me where my understanding of the gospels is not Catholic.

Several people here have. Repeatedly. I will repeat again.

To deny the historicy of the Gospels is to deny the whole of scripture. Unlike the Creation account, there are no difficult concepts of natural history that people at that time could not understand. People knew where babies came from and astologers had been around for quite a while. Kings had been killing weak for more than a millenia.

The scriptures in only a few places use allegory to explain a difficult concepts. The Gospels do not need to resort to this. Your position simply states the the Scriptures lie needlessly; the clear implication is that God does not have the power to do what happened. That is apostasy.

But then, I am just a dumb blind follower who relies on both Faith and Reason. Unlike the really smart people who have no need of Faith and can figure it all out by themselves with no help from an impotent God.

 

[rpp]

"rpp:

If you think God is “morally responsible” for executing judgment on, say, the Egyptions when he lead Moses to free the Jews, you are not conforming yourself to the teachings of the Church.

I never said I believed that - I was making a few observations on things authors have attributed to God in the interest of a discusision. Where does the church teach that God is not responsible for those actions?

Yes, you have said this. See below.

The Church does not teach this. That is the whole point. You are not conforming to what the Church does teach. Here is what you said, admittedly on a different thread where you were responding directly to the OP on the question “Is God Morally Responsible?”

On the following thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=124183
Subject: God Morally Resonsible?
Maybe the question could be looked at based on these two concepts:

1. 
   *]Should we expect God to follow the same rules we are expected to follow? If God has defined morality for us and we are responsible to God for following the definition, isn’t God somewhat responsible to us for following the same rules? If not, why make the rules for us minor beings when the infinitely more powerful being can potentially cause infinitely more suffering by not following the rules than any of us can?
   *]Do we only follow “our” God because we have no choice? We would not follow anyone on earth who violated their own moral code in the ways the God of the bible has. (emphasis rpp)
   **I contend that the God presented in the bible has at the least appeared to be morally irresponsible from our point of view. I understand the previous statements that God can do anything God wants and that we don’t have to understand it but I’m not sure that is being truly responsible. **(emphasis my rpp).
   
   A few examples:
   
   God wants the Jews freed from Egypt. Is it moral to starve or drown or send plagues to innocent people to achieve this? Is it OK to kill the innocent first born children when there were certainly other more moral things an omnipotent God could come up with?
   
   God orders a man to slaughter his son to prove his loyalty and then says never mind - would a moral being consider this to be a fine thing to do?
   
   This diety then requires (emphasis patg) the barbaric torture and human sacrifice of his own perfect and innocent son to see fit to forgive some mythological offense. Somehow the shedding of the blood of someone who never sinned is justifiable and pays the price of sin? **Is this something a moral being is supposed to accept as OK? **(empasis rpp)

1. 
   

   Saying that God can do anything and that we just don’t understand is also saying that for God, the end justifies the means.

   You appear espouse some distubing theology.
   
   In here you claim God is not a moral being. You say God does not even follow His own moral code. That is not consistent with Catholic teaching. I find this utterly indefensible, and a few other things which I will not mention.
   
   I am saddend, but not surprised, it comes from someone who schizophrenically denies the veracity of Scripture yet claims to be Catholic.

 

[patg]

You appear espouse some distubing theology.

In here you claim God is not a moral being. You say God does not even follow His own moral code. That is not consistent with Catholic teaching. I find this utterly indefensible, and a few other things which I will not mention.

I am saddend, but not surprised, it comes from someone who schizophrenically denies the veracity of Scripture yet claims to be Catholic.

Please don’t misquote me. I did not make a statement as to what I believe. For the sake of the question by the poster, I said "I contend that the God presented in the bible has at the least appeared to be morally irresponsible". The key phrases being “the God presented” and “appeared to be” and the purpose in saying that was to encourage discussion related to the topic. There wasn’t any discussion so I guess no one had any feelings about this, which seems strange. Please tell me how that God does not “appear”, by what we know, to be behaving oddly? I was ready to discuss it but that thread pretty much died so you don’t know how I really feel, do you?

 

[patg]

I am saddend, but not surprised, it comes from someone who schizophrenically denies the veracity of Scripture yet claims to be Catholic.

I denied absolutely nothing that is against church teaching, doctine, or dogma. Have you had any adult religious education recently? This has been taught in many parishes for many years and is the subject of many books by real catholics, some even under the imprimatur. And as I said before, the church also allows you to be a literalist - both paths are searching for the same truth.

 

[patg]

Several people here have. Repeatedly. I will repeat again.

And I repeat, not one person has shown this to be true from the church’s perspective. Yes, a lot of people seem hurt and think I am an evil scrooge attempting to destroy the magic of Christmas - I understand that and you can keep that, I like it too. The literal view, however, is not the only view and is not required by the church.

To deny the historicy of the Gospels is to deny the whole of scripture. Unlike the Creation account, there are no difficult concepts of natural history that people at that time could not understand. People knew where babies came from and astologers had been around for quite a while. Kings had been killing weak for more than a millenia.

The scriptures in only a few places use allegory to explain a difficult concepts. The Gospels do not need to resort to this. Your position simply states the the Scriptures lie needlessly; the clear implication is that God does not have the power to do what happened. That is apostasy.

But then, I am just a dumb blind follower who relies on both Faith and Reason. Unlike the really smart people who have no need of Faith and can figure it all out by themselves with no help from an impotent God.

You keep repeating the same untruths - the church does not agree with you and does not teach this. Please, please tell us where the church requires any belief in the total, literal historicity of the gospels. Sure, you must believe in certain essential truths described in the narratives but you do not have to believe literally in the narratives. We have taught this for many years in many parishes and there are many good books available if you care to study for yourself (some under the imprimatur) and all by catholic scholars and catholic publishers. If you happen to not agree, that is fine, the church allows that also. The opinion I hold is just as valid in the church’s eyes.

 

[Brendan]

We have not a single woman in a position of magesterial power, authority, or even (name removed by moderator)ut? Totally Asinine.

We have Mary as Queen of Heaven, which is by far a more powerful position than anyone in the Magisterium has.

And she has provided immesurable imput to Pontiffs throughout all of history.

I don’t recall, though, her ever asking to be Ordained

 

[patg]

Rahter than humble obediance to the church, the dissidents have created an atmosphere where these dissidents are the “thinking” Catholics and those who conform their lives and minds to Church teachings are therefore stupid.

I contend that if you deny I conform to church teachings on the scriptures that you are sadly mistaken concerning church teachings.

If you maintain that the historical accounts of the life of Christ are fiction, you are not not conforming your mind to the teachings of the Church.

Where do you get these teachings I am not conforming too? The church has published several major documents on scriptural analysis and the concepts I hold and teach flow directly from those documents and the church leaders with credentials much greater than ours who have spent their lives on this subject.

 

[patg]

We could engage in a “quoting war” here in which we each copy and paste endless quotes which “absolutely prove” our points. This has been done many times in these forums and a simple search will provide you with thousands of posts on the subjects of biblical inerrancy and historicity. There is no need to repeat all of that and I can’t imagine the opposing views changing their beliefs because of it. I’ll just present a few closing remarks:

I understand where literalists are coming from - the nativity story is a magical one and brings a warm glow to even the hardest heart when read each year in the glow of candles and colored lights. We all have vast deposits of childhood Christmas memories which we cherish as adults and we are very reluctant to question anything related to them.

However, there is nothing even slightly unCatholic about doubting that the infancy narratives are history. There is no requirement or penalty for believing that they are primarily fiction. Being inspired does not make a poem not a poem, it does not make a song not a song, and it does not make a legend anything it is not.

It is a fact that the ancients wrote elaborate and miraculous introductions for stories about famous people to demonstrate their perceived status and elevate their stature. These well-known literary forms are called “infancy narratives” and the stories in Matthew and Luke follow the popular formula exactly. The stories of divine origins, celestial events that accompanied the births, geologic upheavels, omens and portents all meant something specific to ancient readers and the church emphasizes that we must interpret based on that meaning, not ours.

Doubting the history does not discredit the truth!!!

Merry Christmas.

 

[rpp]

Please don’t misquote me. I did not make a statement as to what I believe. For the sake of the question by the poster, I said "I contend that the God presented in the bible has at the least appeared to be morally irresponsible". The key phrases being “the God presented” and “appeared to be” and the purpose in saying that was to encourage discussion related to the topic. There wasn’t any discussion so I guess no one had any feelings about this, which seems strange. Please tell me how that God does not “appear”, by what we know, to be behaving oddly? I was ready to discuss it but that thread pretty much died so you don’t know how I really feel, do you?

Your response is poor sophistry. You made a claim based on the same information everyone else in theo worlds has. Yet you came to a radical conclusions that is absolutly in conflict with the teachings of the Church.

Furthermore, I did not misquote you in the least. This is a direct copy of what you said. Your statement implies that I purposely altered your statement. That is an utterly false accusation, but one which I am not surprised to be the victim of.