Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

[irenaeus1]

Absolutely not. It exists in the supernatural realm as a matter of faith totally outside the realm of human history and all that we define to be the rigorous science of history. We, of course, absolutely believe it to be true - but that belief is a result of faith and dogma and has nothing to do with history.

Absolutely wrong. Our faith in the virgin birth has everything to do with our belief that it actually happened in history. Just because the virgin birth exists in the supernatural realm does not mean that it is not a part of human history. By this reasoning, none of the miracles of Jesus were actually performed in history since, by definition, a true miracle is of the supernatural realm. The crowning miracle after the crucifixion, the resurrection, also did not happen in history - according to your reasoning.

Second, if one absolutely believes the virgin birth to be true, then one believes the virgin birth to have actually occurred historically, regardless of whether it could be proven or not. Same for the resurrection. (although I’m not sure what you mean by ‘proven’ with regard to historical events since a historical event cannot be ‘proven’ as if by scientific analysis). Your position of “I believe it to be true, but I don’t believe it really happened in human history” is perplexing to say the least. You propose that we cannot make the claim because it cannot be proven as an historical event. You cannot prove that it was not an historical event. And in the case of the virgin birth, if you believe in it, then you have to believe that it happened historically. Think about it. If you absolutely believe the virgin birth to be true, but historically, Mary was impregnated by Joseph or a Roman soldier or some other man, then your belief would be wrong because it would not align with what historically took place, namely that Mary was impregnated by a human father, which is obviously not a virgin birth. So please explain how your absolute belief in the virgin birth does not necessitate your belief that the virgin birth actually took place in human history. Give me an example of how they do not have to be both true simultaneously.

We believe the virgin birth because the Church defines it as dogma, not

because any historian tells us that it happened or because there is historical evidence that it happened.
We may not have the certainty of faith until the Church definitively makes a certain pronouncement, but this is irrelevant as to when something is true. The virgin birth was true before the Church defined it as true. When we say that the Church defined something as true, we mean that the Church discerned to be true something that was already true. It did not suddenly become true at the moment the Church dogmatically defined it.

The accounts of the Flight to Egypt and Massacre of the Innocents are not defined

as “must believe” dogmas or doctrines. They are also only described in a single gospel and, as you said, meet all the criteria for Jewish Midrash/Ancient Infancy Narrative.
Nice try… but I never said that they meet all the criteria for Jewish Midrash/Ancient Infancy Narrative. I stated that according to you, if the accounts of the Flight to Egypt and Massacre of the Innocents meet a particular literary genre, then how does the account of the virgin birth escape the same treatment. But I have since learned that you do not believe that the virgin birth was an historical event, which sounds heretical to me. So answer me this: do you believe that the resurrection of Jesus happened in human history? I think I know the answer, but I would like to see it in black and white from you.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Bob,

Of course, the birth of Jesus is a historical reality. And, we believe that birth was a virgin birth. I think all that patg is saying is that historians can not and will not be able to verify that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth.

This seems to be common sense to me. Historians also will never be able to verify that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, Son of God, etc. All historians can say is that He was born and that “He suffered, died and was buried.” They can also verify what His followers believed and taught.

Everything else is historical fact based on our Faith, not on verifiable historical evidence.

God bless,

Robert

I think you are misunderstanding what is being stated. Whether history can prove or disprove a particular event is not the issue. The point is that if we believe something to be true, and this truth is based on a historical event, then this necessitates the historical event being true, regardless of whether it can be proven or not. For example, we take it on faith and trust in God’s revelation, if we believe who Jesus claimed Himself to be, that God sent His Son into the world; the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. Just because this cannot be proven historically does not mean that it did not actually happen in human history. After all, the Church preaches that this is exactly what happened with regard to the Incarnation; namely, that God entered into human history. God becoming flesh and being born of a woman was an historical event.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Of course, the birth of Jesus is a historical reality. And, we believe that birth was a virgin birth. I think all that patg is saying is that historians can not and will not be able to verify that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth.

I agree with regard to historians not being able to prove that Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth, but that is irrelevant as to whether virgin birth is historically true. Either Mary was a virgin in history who gave birth to Jesus in history or she wasn’t. If the former is true, then our belief is true. If the latter is true, then our belief is false. Simple. What I want to know from patg is: What does it mean to believe that the virgin birth is true, but the historicity of the virgin birth need not be true?

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

And how does that discount what I just wrote? Are you arguing that historians should discard the requirement of evidence to state things as “historical fact?”

We are not talking about what historians require as evidence. We are talking about one who claims to be a Christian and states that he absolutely believes the virgin birth to be true, but absolutely does not believe that the virgin birth happened in human history. One necessitates the other.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

All patg said is that she believes in the virgin birth, but that it can’t be proven by historians.

No, that is not what patg said. Patg said that he (she) absolutely believes in the virgin birth, but absolutely does not believe the virgin birth to be an historical event. I’m wondering how this is not a contradiction. Whether a historian can prove it is irrelevant.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

Ok, so use the standard tools of scholarly historical analysis and prove that it happened. This is a matter of faith and no matter how strongly and sincerely you believe it to be true, it is clearly outside the realm of human experience, and hence not part of history.

Then why can you not take it on faith that it happened in human history? And what the heck do you mean by ‘outside the realm of human experience’? In the case of the virgin birth, Mary experienced it.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[irenaeus1]

The truth of the virgin birth is not a matter of history, cannot be addressed by history, and is based on no historical evidence. No one can logically say they believe in the virgin birth based on a historical analysis. They can (and must, if claiming to be Catholic) believe it on the dogmatic teaching.

But the dogmatic teaching is based on the virgin birth being historically true.

 

[irenaeus1]

Please stop lying about what I said - I never said I did not believe it. It is absolutely not historically based or verifiable - why would that mean it it is not believable? There are many things we believe and yet can’t verify - the change of the water and wine into Jesus’ body and blood is certainly NOT verifiable and yet I bet you believe in that.

I did not ask you whether you thought that the virgin birth was historically verifiable. I asked you whether you believed that the virgin birth was an historical event. You replied, “Absolutely not” in Post #101. Why not?.. because it’s not verifiable?

 

[irenaeus1]

• • No.

1. It’s a fact
2. It happened
3. It is fundamental to faith in Christ

• but it’s not a fact of the historical order; that is, it did not happen within history in the same way as the Crucifixion, or the fire of Rome in 64 AD, any more the creation did: with which it has a lot in common; neither is a fact of the historical order, yet both it & the creation are realities. Not all real events are historical; but they are no less real as events for that.

I think you’ve been very well answered. ++

I think it would be more accurate to state that it’s not a fact of the natural order. That’s not to say that supernatural events cannot happen in the historical order. Otherwise, none of Jesus’ miracles actually happened in the world of His day. Did Jesus really turn the water into wine at Cana? Although miraculous, this is still an historical event. Some will say that it is not historical because it is not verifiable (although I would claim that Mary and Jesus and a few others could vouch for the event). But then, neither is it verifiable that Jesus was at Cana in the first place, and His presence at Cana is not even miraculous.

 

[irenaeus1]

Ok, so use the standard tools of scholarly historical analysis and prove that it happened. This is a matter of faith and no matter how strongly and sincerely you believe it to be true, it is clearly outside the realm of human experience, and hence not part of history.

So the crowds that witnessed the miracles of Jesus, those who were in wonder and awe, those who were amazed and astonished… was this not within the realm of human experience? The standard tools of scholarly analysis cannot prove that these people were lying or that the miracles did not happen. In fact, so real were the miracles (or at least their appearances) and the response of the multitudes by them that we have extra-biblical writings claiming that Jesus was a sorcerer or worked magic learned by Him from the Egyptians. Something happened in human history to warrant such a write-up about His doings.

 

[Holly3278]

I agree that dissident Catholics are more dangerous than Atheists. Dissident Catholics really anger me too.

 

[estesbob]

Yes. And, if God exists, then He exists. So? That doesn’t mean a scientist can prove God exists. All patg said is that she believes in the virgin birth, but that it can’t be proven by historians.

If you disagree with her, then you are saying that historians can prove it to be true. I would certainly be more than interested in how you think they can prove it. I’m sure patg would as well.

I never said anythig about anybody “proving” anything. I merely made the statement that if Christ was born of a Virgin that is a historical fact. Once again-it either happened or it did not.

As far as what historians view of the Virgin Birth is i could not care less. I dont know whio appinted them as final authorities of what happened when.

 

[estesbob]

You are correct, but they also don’t teach that something like a virgin birth is an “historical fact.” They teach that Jesus was born and his followers believe it was a virgin birth. Or, that Jesus was born of a virgin according to the Bible.

Quite frankly, you and Bob are scaring me. Based on your reasoning, you should have no problem with the historians with a non-Catholic world view teaching that Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin. No need for any historical evidence, right? So, we have two historians teaching two different things and both are justified on claiming them as historical fact.

That’s great. Remind me not to attend any of your history lectures.

Historians can teach whatever they want. it has no effect whatsoever on whether an even happend or not.

 

[flazor1]

It is no contradiction whatsoever. There is a tremendous difference between historical truth and dogmatic truth.

Can you demonstrate that logically?

You should read Dei Verbum. There is a statement which directly addresses this: “For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.”

I have read it, and this statement you quote does not say that there are different contradictory “truths” that can co-exist compatibly with either history or faith. You have inferred that untruth into DV, I suppose, based on years of contemporary modern scholarship.

The truth of the virgin birth is not a matter of history, cannot be addressed by history, and is based on no historical evidence.

Of course the Virgin Birth is a matter of history. History is a record of what happened, and the Church requires we believe in the happening of the Virgin Birth. You are also in error when you say there is no historical evidence. The New Testament is historical evidence, although “scholars” with certain agnostic predispositions insist on destroying the weight of its historical testimony by equating it with a book of fairy tales. As a collection of historical documents, the New Testament is quite compelling, as even secular historians have acknowledged.

No one can logically say they believe in the virgin birth based on a historical analysis.

Who knows what you have in mind by “historical analysis,” but if the accounts of eyewitnesses form any part of such analysis, then Luke is making precisely that claim, when he records the event as part of his historical account to Theophilus. Would Mary have any insight into whether or not she had known a man, or been visited by an angel, or given birth under miraculous circumstances?

You ignored all the discussion I provided about the classic Infancy Narrative genre so evident in Luke and wouldn’t say why I was wrong so I moved to something I thought was simpler.

I didn’t ignore your discussion and I was quite plain about why I think you are wrong. I directly challenged you as to why Luke went out of his way to establish the historical bona fide of what he was writing if he was only weaving together Jewish fables to provide meaning in place of facts.

I agree we should stick to one simple topic, so lets finish the virgin birth.

Lets.

Ok, I believe I have now answered the virgin birth questions.

That didn’t last long.

Please stop lying about what I said - I never said I did not believe it.

Excuse me, I quoted you directly. I am not lying. That is historically verifiable.

It is absolutely not historically based or verifiable - why would that mean it it is not believable?

How can anyone who claims to place so much value on scholarship and historical analysis claim that anything is “absolutely not historically based or verifiable,” unless you have an a priori belief that the thing never happened in the first place? If something happened, there is always a chance that evidence of it may surface. And yet if something never happened, it is absolutely impossible to verify that it did.

There are many things we believe and yet can’t verify - the change of the water and wine into Jesus’ body and blood is certainly NOT verifiable and yet I bet you believe in that.

You are shifting the focus again. We aren’t talking about what can be “verified,” whatever you may mean by that. We are talking about whether a miraculous event took place or did not take place in history. My sources in the NT and the early Church, which, (as remarked in Dei Verbum), include Luke’s and Matthew’s historical accounts of the birth of Jesus, say that the Virgin Birth did take place. Your a priori theological assumption appears to be that it absolutely did not. If you want to discount the NT as reliable historical evidence, that’s between you and your favorite scholars.

But don’t tell me that I can’t accept it as evidence. I and the Church have been accepting it for 2000 years, and Church scholars accepted it for, oh, maybe 1965 years.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is getting into what I call a semantics scrimmage.

The whole sideshow about historical proof is a rather silly attempt by some (or so it appears to me) to distract from the major point that I think has been very clearly stated.

Either something happens, or it doesn’t.

Either the Virgin Birth occurred–in historical time–or it didn’t.

And ditto with all the events of Jesus’s life.

Either there really was a man, born of a virgin, who lived, taught, suffered and died, and rose again, and who sent a Divine Spirit to guide a church that He founded to last all time. . .

or there wasn’t.

And if there wasn’t, then it’s a fairy tale. A beautiful allegory, a thrilling story, a myth made to ‘explain’, enlighten, and entertain.

Faith is not ‘outside of’ reason as some appear to think. It is not necessary that we suspend our critical faculties in order to accept the historicity of Christ and His Church.

We don’t need to have our beliefs turned into “well, Jesus didn’t really turn 5 loaves and 2 fishes into enough food to feed 5000 people. This is just a wonderful story. Really, what happened was that the people all shared–and of course, the sharing is the true meaning of Christianity. No need for miracles. We just like to put ‘miracles’ into a story because it makes for better reading, it reflects a cultural norm, etc. etc. No need to tell actual events of Jesus’ life.”

And yes, I know that Jesus Himself spoke in parables etc. Point is, when He does, it is either specifically noted in the Bible --i.e., “He spoke to them in parables”, or it is otherwise explained authoritatively; never is there a note that "the lepers were not ‘really healed’ or, "this symbolic event is meant to convey that through Jesus our sinful human condition is ‘wiped away’ etc.)

But in the life of Jesus, I do not believe that there has ever been taught by the Church and clarified to be official teaching that any of the events in the gospels were not ‘historical events.’ Saul was actually struck blind. Jesus rose from the dead. People were actually healed. These were not ‘symbols’, they were real events.

 

[rlg94086]

This is getting into what I call a semantics scrimmage.
.

Gee, ya think?

This all started when patg stated belief in the virgin birth, but that it is not historically verifiable. You guys have now gone on and on that it is an “historical event.” There are two meanings to “historical event.” You don’t seem to want to accept one of them.

Does patg believe the virgin birth is an historical event (i.e. it happened)? Yes, I think so…that’s what “We, of course, absolutely believe it to be true - but that belief is a result of faith and dogma and has nothing to do with history.” means.

Does patg believe the virgin birth is an historical event (i.e. that it is verifiable by historians)? No, I don’t think so…that’s what “Absolutely not. It exists in the supernatural realm as a matter of faith totally outside the realm of human history and all that we define to be the rigorous science of history.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why do you say there are 'two meanings to the word " though?

Seriously?

Historical event. Happened in time. History is the study of events that happened in time. Some events lots of people know about. . .The Battle of Yorktown, Magna Charta; some very few. Some events are well documented; some are not.

But every one of those events/ people/ actions etc. took place in a certain period/place. Right?

So the Virgin Birth existed in history–not outside of history, not parallel to history–but in history.

Right?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And how is the Virgin Birth “not verifiable by historians?” Excuse me, we have the gospel of Luke. Luke, a Gentile writing to Gentiles, was writing about historical events for which he himself used primary sources–Mary herself, the apostles and other eyewitnesses.

We have more information about the birth of Jesus than we do about the birth of millions of acknowledged ‘historical figures’.

 

[rlg94086]

Still don’t get it, eh?

Historical
1 a : of, relating to, or having the character of history <historical data>

History
2 a : a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b : a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena
3 : a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events <medieval history>
4 a : events that form the subject matter of a history b : events of the past.

When you say an event is “historical” it could mean that it belongs to the record of past events in the branch of knowledge that is called History - OR - it could simply be an event of the past.

So, yes…“seriously.”

The virgin birth happened in history, but it was not necessarily an historic event, depending on how you mean by that.

Jesus was most certainly born and existed according to historical data, but it would be wrong for an historian to claim that His birth mother was definitely a virgin. It would also be wrong for an historian to claim that Jesus is the Christ. If you don’t believe that, then you will have to accept a historical teaching of all of the other religious faiths as fact. From a “historical” standpoint, they are all equally valid based on their data.

Why do you say there are 'two meanings to the word " though?

Seriously?

Historical event. Happened in time. History is the study of events that happened in time. Some events lots of people know about. . .The Battle of Yorktown, Magna Charta; some very few. Some events are well documented; some are not.

But every one of those events/ people/ actions etc. took place in a certain period/place. Right?

So the Virgin Birth existed in history–not outside of history, not parallel to history–but in history.

Right?

 

[flazor1]

And how is the Virgin Birth “not verifiable by historians?” Excuse me, we have the gospel of Luke. Luke, a Gentile writing to Gentiles, was writing about historical events for which he himself used primary sources–Mary herself, the apostles and other eyewitnesses.

We have more information about the birth of Jesus than we do about the birth of millions of acknowledged ‘historical figures’.

I agree with you completely! But I’m afraid the two sides here are talking over an unbridgeable gap.

I don’t speak for patg or any other writer on this thread. But I can describe the modernist theology that has been spoon fed to Catholics by Catholic “teachers” for 40 years. Modernists do not believe either in the Virgin Birth, or any other event in the life of Christ, including the Resurrection, as historical events, i.e., that they actually happened. Period. They believe in concepts, and symbols, and evolving dogmas, and hyphenated nonhistorical abstractions like the God-Man and the Christ-event. They just don’t believe God became Man, or that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. In other words, they don’t believe in the Catholic faith

But when speaking to the unenlightened, rather than deny these things in a straighforward fashion, they attempt to dodge behind claims that the events are not “historically verifiable,” but are perfectly acceptable if confined to the realm of “faith,” where, apparently, grown people are encouraged to indulge religious fantasies in private while living a purely agnostic life limited by the same empirical laws as any atheist. Modernists are characterized by a profound embarassment at the idea that the supernatural would invade the natural world. This is a way to avoid all that.

What they believe in is an alternative religious reality that, as energetically described above, has nothing to do with historical reality and is completely outside of it. By this means, they are able to propose contradictory realities, wherein they can believe according to one reality what they deny in the other.

This heresy was defined and condemned by Pius X in the early 1900s in his Encyclical On the Doctrine of the Modernists, and his Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists. It was condemned but clearly was not eradicated. It resurfaced with a vengeance in the 1960s and has permeated the Western Church. Not every person taught by modernists is a modernist, but everyone dependent on them for their Catholic religious education has been deeply misinformed. The insidious thing about modernism is that any Catholic seeking genuine answers is surrounded by priests, nuns, and other “authorities” parroting what, as far as I can tell, is the majority opinion among Catholics.

I had to flee the Church for a semblance of orthodoxy amongst sectarian protestants in the 1970s. I returned to the Church years later when I was mature enough to face the loneliness and challenge of isolation in a sea of utter catechetical and homiletical and liturgical nonsense. Or I thought I was mature enough, but lately my nose is kind of out of joint for some reason, But I don’t mean anything personal against anyone on this board, and if I have offended anyone by being too harsh, I apologize. I aim to engage ideas, not persons, not always with success. The Church has paid a big price, and is still paying, for these errors.

I haven’t got the link to Pius X but it should be easy to find on New Advent.