Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh believe me, I ‘get it’.

I “get” that using ‘alternate’ and ‘redefined’ and ‘specialized’ meanings lets me say that something is at once black **and ** white, **neither **black nor white, and anything else, including pink-and-purple-polka dotted, simply by claiming that my use of any given word or term means ‘x’, while anybody else is meaning ‘y’, but that really, Dr. Pangloss, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Again, trying to ‘box’ in the word ‘historical’ to claim that it could “merely” represent something ‘documented’ in the overarching category of History with a capital H, as opposed to an ‘undocumented’ event–well, sorry, this is just starting to seem like the arguments of middle school and high school students being encouraged to be ‘critical thinkers’ or whatever the latest buzzword or fad is for the “learning experience”.

 

[estesbob]

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.

You can find it here. papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Great post, BTW. One of the big problems in the Church is these people end up teaching RCIA.

 

[rlg94086]

Was the giving of the Quran to Muhammed by Allah an historical event? If not, why not?

Oh believe me, I ‘get it’.

I “get” that using ‘alternate’ and ‘redefined’ and ‘specialized’ meanings lets me say that something is at once black **and **white, **neither **black nor white, and anything else, including pink-and-purple-polka dotted, simply by claiming that my use of any given word or term means ‘x’, while anybody else is meaning ‘y’, but that really, Dr. Pangloss, all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Again, trying to ‘box’ in the word ‘historical’ to claim that it could “merely” represent something ‘documented’ in the overarching category of History with a capital H, as opposed to an ‘undocumented’ event–well, sorry, this is just starting to seem like the arguments of middle school and high school students being encouraged to be ‘critical thinkers’ or whatever the latest buzzword or fad is for the “learning experience”.

 

[patg]

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’.

That’s very wihful thinking with no basis in reality. We know almost nothing about Jesus birth. The only thing we have are two very different stories which recount unverifiable and historically unsupportable events. Those stories only exist in 2 documents written long after the event by authors who weren’t there but who already believed in the divinity of Jesus - about as unbiased as you can get.

Since the same stories were written about the pharoahs, the Caesars, and any number of other ancient leaders and gods, I assume you believe they were gods also?

Historians use rigid academic analysis tools with established rules and guidelines for reconstructing events of the past. That is important - all history is reconstruction.The “serious” side of history uses documentation, witnesses, and many other types of evidence to attempt to reconstruct what most likely happened. Historians put far more credence in event descriptions when they are reported in multiple sources, when the report is close in time to the event, when the reporter is objective from the event, etc. There are many other considerations you can look up if you are interested.

To say that “it either happened or it didn’t” says nothing since historians can only reconstruct what probably happened based on the evidence. We can never know what absolutely happened because we can never reconstruct exactly based on the limited evidence we have. We can’t even convince some people that we landed on the moon or how many assassins attacked Kennedy and yet those events happened less than 50 years ago in full view of thousands.

Our religion is called the “Catholic Faith” for a reason - faith is a requirement for belief in supernatural events.

Ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historical accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality which must have to do with the truth and the real.

 

[estesbob]

That’s very wihful thinking with no basis in reality. We know almost nothing about Jesus birth. The only thing we have are two very different stories which recount unverifiable and historically unsupportable events. Those stories only exist in 2 documents written long after the event by authors who weren’t there but who already believed in the divinity of Jesus - about as unbiased as you can get.

Since the same stories were written about the pharoahs, the Caesars, and any number of other ancient leaders and gods, I assume you believe they were gods also?

Historians use rigid academic analysis tools with established rules and guidelines for reconstructing events of the past. That is important - all history is reconstruction.The “serious” side of history uses documentation, witnesses, and many other types of evidence to attempt to reconstruct what most likely happened. Historians put far more credence in event descriptions when they are reported in multiple sources, when the report is close in time to the event, when the reporter is objective from the event, etc. There are many other considerations you can look up if you are interested.

To say that “it either happened or it didn’t” says nothing since historians can only reconstruct what probably happened based on the evidence. We can never know what absolutely happened because we can never reconstruct exactly based on the limited evidence we have. We can’t even convince some people that we landed on the moon or how many assassins attacked Kennedy and yet those events happened less than 50 years ago in full view of thousands.

Our religion is called the “Catholic Faith” for a reason - faith is a requirement for belief in supernatural events.

Ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historical accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical thinking. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality which must have to do with the truth and the real.

Pius X says it better than I could. Note well what I have bolded.

"An example may be sought in the Person of Christ. In the Person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine must be rejected. **Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. **Lastly, the third canon, which lays down that the Person of Christ has been disfigured by faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else, that is not in strict keeping with His character, condition, and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A method of reasoning which is passing strange, but in it we have the Modernist criticism. "

 

[rlg94086]

Was the revealing of the Quran to Muhammed by Allah an historical event? If not, why not?

Bumped…and edited to “revealing” instead of “giving” for accuracy.

 

[patg]

…I’m afraid the two sides here are talking over an unbridgeable gap.

That’s for sure.

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.

“Spoon fed???” Oh please, when I realized the church didn’t require me to believe the literal fundamentalism of my childhood religion classes I gulped down everything I could find by the Church’s masters of biblical scholarship. I would be long gone from the Church if it were not for them.

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.

I’ll speak for myself - your statement is patently false, period. I can’t imagine you can’t see the difference between asserting that these events never happened and asserting that history cannot verify that they happened and thus they are primarily a matter of faith. Lets take the Immaculate Conception, a Dogma of the church. And what is a “dogma”? According the dictionary, it is "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning* faith** or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church".* Do you see the phrase “verified history” in there? It’s all about FAITH!

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

Having faith in something means you don’t believe it? That’s a little strange. Having faith is how you believe in those things you can’t prove. According to your logic then, I guess faith is not part of the Church.

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.

No, we use historical analysis for what it is good at and the faith teachings of the Church for what it is not.

The Church has paid a big price, and is still paying, for these errors.

Fortunately Pope Paul VI cleared things up when specifically encouraged the use of modern historical analysis in Dei Verbum (Chapter 3, section 12). Just what price are you referring to for these alleged errors?

 

[estesbob]

Fortunately Pope Paul VI cleared things up when specifically encouraged the use of modern historical analysis in Dei Verbum (Chapter 3, section 12). Just what price are you referring to for these alleged errors?

Heres what he said. I dont see a word about modern historical analysis. I also dont see any contradiction to what Pius X said or Flazor1 said:

**12. However, since God speaks in sacred Scripture through men in human fashion [6], the interpreter of sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary norms.” 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 the period in their everyday dealings with one another [8].

But, since holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the same spirit in which it was written [9], no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgement of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgement of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the Word of God [10].
**

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The real problem is that some people see “faith” and “history” as mutually exclusive.

They are not.

I don’t look at a person (Christ) or an event (the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection) and say, "Golly gee, I wasn’t there and there really isn’t anything that contemporary historical tools would say really proves this person or this event really happened. But, since I’m a Christian I will take this ‘on faith’ and never bother my pretty little head over whether or not I can ‘prove’ He existed or it happened.

IOW, I don’t need no stinkin’ history cause I’ve got faith!
What a ridiculous notion! What a subtly diabolical way to twist a person into holding “six impossible notions before breakfast”!

I am a Christian precisely because I believe in history (and His-story). Because I believe that this man existed, and came to earth this way, because I believe that God inspired the scripture to tell these events and that He sent His Holy Spirit to guide the Catholic Church into not just assembling all these written data, but all the oral data, and finally to teach authoritatively on that data.

But then, let Christ Himself tell it. “Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away.” Events will someday cease, tools for historical data gathering will someday cease–history itself will someday cease when Christ comes in judgment and we enter outside of 'history/time" into the eternal kingdom.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Well, we know that Jesus rose in his glorified body from the dead. We also know that the bible is inerrant.

While I believe both of the above, on the second point I find myself at a point of paradox (not doubt or disbelief, but paradox). Namely, the resurrection account which tells of Mary Magdalene meeting the risen Jesus and weeping, supposing him to be the Gardener. And she says to Him, “They have taken away my Lord and I do not know where they have lain him.” And Jesus replies to her, “Mary,” whereupon she recognizes Jesus and grasps his feet.
I can’t reconcile this account of the resurrection with the narratives in the other gospels, which have Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary (Mary Cleophas) coming to the tomb, finding it open, being greeted by angels in dazzling white garments who tell them that He is not here, for He is Risen, whereupon they joyfully run off to tell the disciples.
How can Mary first encounter the empty tomb, receive the joyful news of Jesus’s resurrection, and run off joyfully,
and at the same time arrive at the tomb, find it empty, start weeping, and run into Jesus who makes himself known to her.
While I look with a critical eye at much of modern biblical scholarship, I have to believe that one or the other of these accounts engaged in some creative restructuring of the events of the resurrection morning, because these two things above are mutually exclusive if we read the accounts hyper-literally.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[rlg94086]

And Muslims believe that Allah revealed the Quran to Muhammed. Now, was that or was that not an historical event? If not, why not?

The real problem is that some people see “faith” and “history” as mutually exclusive.

They are not.

I don’t look at a person (Christ) or an event (the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection) and say, "Golly gee, I wasn’t there and there really isn’t anything that contemporary historical tools would say really proves this person or this event really happened. But, since I’m a Christian I will take this ‘on faith’ and never bother my pretty little head over whether or not I can ‘prove’ He existed or it happened.

IOW, I don’t need no stinkin’ history cause I’ve got faith!
What a ridiculous notion! What a subtly diabolical way to twist a person into holding “six impossible notions before breakfast”!

I am a Christian precisely because I believe in history (and His-story). Because I believe that this man existed, and came to earth this way, because I believe that God inspired the scripture to tell these events and that He sent His Holy Spirit to guide the Catholic Church into not just assembling all these written data, but all the oral data, and finally to teach authoritatively on that data.

But then, let Christ Himself tell it. “Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away.” Events will someday cease, tools for historical data gathering will someday cease–history itself will someday cease when Christ comes in judgment and we enter outside of 'history/time" into the eternal kingdom.

 

[rlg94086]

The real problem is that some people see “faith” and “history” as mutually exclusive.

They are not.

I am a Christian precisely because I believe in history (and His-story). Because I believe that this man existed, and came to earth this way, because I believe that God inspired the scripture to tell these events and that He sent His Holy Spirit to guide the Catholic Church into not just assembling all these written data, but all the oral data, and finally to teach authoritatively on that data.

But then, let Christ Himself tell it. “Heaven and earth will pass away but My words will never pass away.” Events will someday cease, tools for historical data gathering will someday cease–history itself will someday cease when Christ comes in judgment and we enter outside of 'history/time" into the eternal kingdom.

BTW…nice faith statement. So are historical events dependent on the faith of reader? IOW…the virgin birth only exists for Christians, it didn’t exist for Muslims? That’s silly. It either happened, or it didn’t.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

About the quran? Somewhere, somehow the book got written. So the actual writing of the quran is a historical event. Who inspired it is a different matter. Mohammed may have thought it was Allah. But he doesn’t really present any witnesses. . .

Unlike the Bible, which was compiled by many authors, and which had a process to ascertain its canon which was not limited to one person’s ‘vision’. And whose writers did indeed seek out witnesses to the actual events of the gospel. And the teachings of which have remained, fairly remarkably, the same throughout history. No change of the Trinity to the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four, for example.

Hitler’s genocide of the Jews is a historical event too.

Not all historical events are good. (absolutely speaking).

 

[rlg94086]

I see, so the multiple witness we have, saw God inspire the writers of the Bible? Regarding actual events, there is no argument. But, who actually verified that Mary was a virgin? Was there a eunich chaperone who followed her around?

We take these as Truth, based on our faith, as you so eloquently explained in post #147. They are not historical because of our faith. They either happened or they didn’t.

About the quran? Somewhere, somehow the book got written. So the actual writing of the quran is a historical event. Who inspired it is a different matter. Mohammed may have thought it was Allah. But he doesn’t really present any witnesses. . .

Unlike the Bible, which was compiled by many authors, and which had a process to ascertain its canon which was not limited to one person’s ‘vision’. And whose writers did indeed seek out witnesses to the actual events of the gospel. And the teachings of which have remained, fairly remarkably, the same throughout history. No change of the Trinity to the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four, for example.

Hitler’s genocide of the Jews is a historical event too.

Not all historical events are good. (absolutely speaking).

 

[estesbob]

I see, so the multiple witness we have, saw God inspire the writers of the Bible? Regarding actual events, there is no argument. But, who actually verified that Mary was a virgin? Was there a eunich chaperone who followed her around?

We take these as Truth, based on our faith, as you so eloquently explained in post #147. They are not historical because of our faith. They either happened or they didn’t.

So you agree the Virgin Birth is a Historical fact?

After we reach common gound on that we’ll head to new york and see if we can dig up those Golden tablets Joseph smith saw…

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, based on faith. I’ve stated it on this thread more than once.

It is not the same thing Bob. There is no faith required in believing the existance of an object, person or event. They definitely happened or didn’t happen; existed or didn’t exist. However, there is faith required in believing something unverifiable, such as the virginity of Mary or divine inspiration.

So you agree the Virgin Birth is a Historical fact?

After we reach common gound on that we’ll head to new york and see if we can dig up those Golden tablets Joseph smith saw…

 

[flazor1]

Oh please, when I realized the church didn’t require me to believe the literal fundamentalism of my childhood religion classes I gulped down everything I could find by the Church’s masters of biblical scholarship. I would be long gone from the Church if it were not for them.

Well, I’m sorry you feel that way, but many others are long gone because of them, including many of the “masters of biblical scholarship” themselves, in additon to scores of thousands of priests and nuns, and millions of Cathilics who are either gone or MIA.

I’ll speak for myself - your statement is patently false, period. I can’t imagine you can’t see the difference between asserting that these events never happened and asserting that history cannot verify that they happened and thus they are primarily a matter of faith.

But you already asserted that the Virgin Birth never happened. Are you now trying to modify your earlier comment to say, yes it did happen, but history can’t verify it?

Lets take the Immaculate Conception, a Dogma of the church. And what is a “dogma”? According the dictionary, it is "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning* faith*** or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church". Do you see the phrase “verified history” in there? It’s all about FAITH!

No. I find the phrase “verified history” ludicrous, and it has nothing to do with dogma, or history. I don’t think any self-respecting historian would ever use it. I have nothing against history. I love it, read it, and am a student of it, including Christian history. That’s why I have perspective enough to see a fad when I see it even if it does hang on and on At this point I’ll be happy if I can outlive droopy pants and Andrew Greeley…

Having faith in something means you don’t believe it?

No. Replying “absolutely not” to a direct question as to whether you believe an event happened or not means you don’t believe it. I believe the proper verb for that is “to deny.” It’s your contradiction. Don’t ask me to explain it.

No, we use historical analysis for what it is good at and the faith teachings of the Church for what it is not.

What the Church is good at is teaching the Deposit of Faith, which in this case, includes the doctrines of Christian Revelation, including the authoritative account of what happened during the Life of Christ. History is at best a tool, not an “authority.” To discount the traditional teaching of the Church in favor of the theories of critical historians gets it all backwards.

Fortunately Pope Paul VI cleared things up when specifically encouraged the use of modern historical analysis in Dei Verbum (Chapter 3, section 12). Just what price are you referring to for these alleged errors?

I admire Paul VI, and I have been reading the Scriptures with some elements of historical analysis for 40-plus years without ever reaching the absurd conclusion that the synoptic Gospels are a synopsis of Jewish myths rather than a synopsis of the Lord’s life and ministry. Besides, if Vatican II cleared everything up so well why did 2/3 of American nuns, and thousands of priests lose their vocations within a decade?

 

[flazor1]

I see, so the multiple witness we have, saw God inspire the writers of the Bible? Regarding actual events, there is no argument. But, who actually verified that Mary was a virgin? Was there a eunich chaperone who followed her around?

I expect she verified it herself, that is, I expect she told Peter and the others, possibly Luke himself, that she lived her entire life without being with a man, and still gave birth to Jesus. I think she would understand her own experience, even without coaching from a Director of Religious Ed.

Also, Joseph was a witness, though there is no internal evidence of who he talked to about. But the inspired reports of the Gospels relay what Joseph was told by the angels, so he must have discussed it with someone, probably Mary and maybe even Jesus.

Why on earth would we start with a presumption that Mary is lying, like the Duke rape victim, and absent DNA evidence or a vaginal exam, the Church has no business believing she was really a virgin?

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t assume Mary is lying…I believe her.

Do you believe Muhammed, when he told his followers that Allah revealed the Quran to him? If not, why not? Why on earth would you start with the presumption that he is lying?

I expect she verified it herself, that is, I expect she told Peter and the others, possibly Luke himself, that she lived her entire life without being with a man, and still gave birth to Jesus. I think she would understand her own experience, even without coaching from a Director of Religious Ed.

Also, Joseph was a witness, though there is no internal evidence of who he talked to about. But the inspired reports of the Gospels relay what Joseph was told by the angels, so he must have discussed it with someone, probably Mary and maybe even Jesus.

Why on earth would we start with a presumption that Mary is lying, like the Duke rape victim, and absent DNA evidence or a vaginal exam, the Church has no business believing she was really a virgin?

 

[flazor1]

However, there is faith required in believing something unverifiable, such as the virginity of Mary or divine inspiration.

I agree with this statement, because there is no other way for me to know something like that. But it is still knowledge of a fact, though the knowledge is revealed supernaturally, as opposed to by natural means. But real human beings did see these things, and they were witnesses of what they saw. They were real.

The issue here is not whether an element of the Christian Creed can or cannot be"verified" (sic) by modern historical analsis, but whether it is true at all. The Church teaches that God actually became Man during the reign of Herod, born of the Virgin Mary. And I believe it because I believe the Church, and the Scriptures. That doesn’t mean it is only true in my head or my religious consciousness. It means it is a fact, like my own birth, regardless of whether I believe in it or not.

On this thread it was, eventually, denied absolutely that the Virgin Birth ever took place at all. If so, It therefore cannot be “verified” historically because it never happened, like when Mrs. Claus met Santa. Big difference.