Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

[rlg94086]

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.

Actually, that is the problem with this thread. This was never stated. I’m assuming you are referring to patg’s post #101, where Pat made a distinction from what we believe (including Pat) versus history…the point was not that the Virgin Birth absolutely didn’t take place at all. The point was that it is not verifiable because the Virgin Birth is a supernatural event. (not the birth part…just the virgin part)

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.

IOW, you agree with patg. So, as Tantum Ergo pointed out many posts ago, this whole argument has been about semantics!

Now, the last part of the above quoted paragraph is not true. Real human beings did witness the birth of Christ, but they did not “witness” Mary’s virginity and they could not unless she was followed around throughout her life. That is why a historian would rightly put the qualifier of “as taught by the Bible and early Church Fathers” or “as believed by Christians” when reporting on the Christ as being “born of a virgin.”

 

[flazor1]

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?

More reasons than I can name, not least of which is that the Quran itself sanctions lying. Also, Because Islam is a false religion. Also Islam, in spite of all the bishops trying to baptize it, is outside of the Christian Revelation, and is at best a heresy and at worst an idolatrous paganism.

But I guess the main reason for our purposes here is that I have never professed to believe in anything Muhammed ever said or did as part of my baptismal confession, the way I have professed faith in the Creed and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Virgin Birth, etc. (See the Creed). The Church doesn’t ask me to believe Muhammed, or any other historical fact or fancy, and by inference, the Church does ask me to reject all rival and contradictory claims, like Islam or the worship of Baal.

Or do you ask because you believe that all religious faiths are equal, and therefore all “truth claims” (ugh) have an equal right to my assent as a Catholic? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, because I know many Catholics have been taught this.

 

[rlg94086]

No, I don’t believe all religions are equal, and I don’t believe Allah revealed the Quran to Muhammed.

The reason I asked is in the hope that you realize why historians should report the facts of events without claiming the absolutes of our faith. I would have a problem with a historian teaching my child history and stating supernatural events as history without some sort of qualifier. Otherwise, the instruction would be colored by that teacher’s personal faith - Muslim, anti-Catholic Christian, etc.

So, I would prefer that it be taught as: Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem between 2 BC and 2 AD (or whatever the range of time historians have worked out) and is believed by Christians to be God incarnate, born of a virgin. And, then teach that Muhammed wrote the Quran, which Muslim faithful believe was revealed by Allah.

My children learn the “historical” Truth of our faith from the catechists, priests, brothers and nuns in our Church.

More reasons than I can name, not least of which is that the Quran itself sanctions lying. Also, Because Islam is a false religion. Also Islam, in spite of all the bishops trying to baptize it, is outside of the Christian Revelation, and is at best a heresy and at worst an idolatrous paganism.

But I guess the main reason for our purposes here is that I have never professed to believe in anything Muhammed ever said or did as part of my baptismal confession, the way I have professed faith in the Creed and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Virgin Birth, etc. (See the Creed). The Church doesn’t ask me to believe Muhammed, or any other historical fact or fancy, and by inference, the Church does ask me to reject all rival and contradictory claims, like Islam or the worship of Baal.

Or do you ask because you believe that all religious faiths are equal, and therefore all “truth claims” (ugh) have an equal right to my assent as a Catholic? I’m not trying to be sarcastic, because I know many Catholics have been taught this.

 

[flazor1]

Actually, that is the problem with this thread. This was never stated. I’m assuming you are referring to patg’s post #101, where Pat made a distinction from what we believe (including Pat) versus history…the point was not that the Virgin Birth absolutely didn’t take place at all. The point was that it is not verifiable because the Virgin Birth is a supernatural event. (not the birth part…just the virgin part)

Come on, now. It was stated. I quote: “It exists in the supernatural realm as a matter of faith totally outside the realm of human history.” Since we are all human beings born in time, I don’t know any other way to be outside the realm of human history except to have never existed or happened. Even if you murder me it doesn’t put me outside the realm of human history. The statement no more admits the reality than when Freud told those matrons their fears existed only in their own minds. That meant they didn’t exist!

IOW, you agree with patg. So, as Tantum Ergo pointed out many posts ago, this whole argument has been about semantics!

Does patg agree with me?

Now, the last part of the above quoted paragraph is not true. Real human beings did witness the birth of Christ, but they did not “witness” Mary’s virginity and they could not unless she was followed around throughout her life. That is why a historian would rightly put the qualifier of “as taught by the Bible and early Church Fathers” or “as believed by Christians” when reporting on the Christ as being “born of a virgin.”

You skipped the best part, by avoiding including Mary and Joseph in the category “witnesses,” (although Mary may have decieved Joseph, I suppose. In which case, the angel of the Lord who told him he was on the wrong track about that would be a witness). None of this is a problem unless you reject the supernatural element of Christianity. Do you?

 

[Karianne]

Harummmph.
All of them, I pray, my foot.
Raymond Brown was not a good scripture scholar
and godfearing, orthodox Catholics should strongly beware of his material. Knowing what I know of him, I won’t even spend a dime on his works. Same with Richard McBrien (though Brown was nowhere near as radical as McBrien), “Sister” Joan Chittester, “Sister” Jose Hobday, and all those other
nonCatholics who call themselves Catholic.

But if a person is taught those people in RCIA and believe that is how to be good are they not saved by invincible ignorance anyway?

 

[flazor1]

No, I don’t believe all religions are equal, and I don’t believe Allah revealed the Quran to Muhammed.

Me either.

The reason I asked is in the hope that you realize why historians should report the facts of events without claiming the absolutes of our faith.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this threa, with began as a discussion of a Vatican official decrying the damage to the Church by dissident heterodox Catholic teachers. This has nothing to do with teaching history. The subject is false catechesis.

I would have a problem with a historian teaching my child history and stating supernatural events as history without some sort of qualifier. Otherwise, the instruction would be colored by that teacher’s personal faith - Muslim, anti-Catholic Christian, etc.

It is, anyway. All of your children’s history teachers have, or will have, some bias. So will all of your children’s catechists, which is why dissidents are so dangerous.

So, I would prefer that it be taught as: Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem between 2 BC and 2 AD (or whatever the range of time historians have worked out) and is believed by Christians to be God incarnate, born of a virgin. And, then teach that Muhammed wrote the Quran, which Muslim faithful believe was revealed by Allah.

Again, we aren’t talking about teaching history.

My children learn the “historical” Truth of our faith from the catechists, priests, brothers and nuns in our Church.

I hope they do. I hope they aren’t being taught that authorized master scholars have concluded that the Virgin Birth didn’t happen and the Creed is factually wrong but symbolically tolerable.

 

[rlg94086]

You skipped the best part, by avoiding including Mary and Joseph in the category “witnesses,” (although Mary may have decieved Joseph, I suppose. In which case, the angel of the Lord who told him he was on the wrong track about that would be a witness). None of this is a problem unless you reject the supernatural element of Christianity. Do you?

I’m sorry? Are you asking me to answer that question again? How many times is it necessary for someone to tell you they believe in the Virgin Birth?

 

[flazor1]

I’m sorry? Are you asking me to answer that question again? How many times is it necessary for someone to tell you they believe in the Virgin Birth?

None. I was replying to your statement that there were no historical witnesses to Mary’s virginity.

 

[rlg94086]

None. I was replying to your statement that there were no historical witnesses to Mary’s virginity.

So you want historians to accept angels as historical witnesses? Great. I hope you and Tantum Ergo don’t get together to put on a history seminar.

 

[rlg94086]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this threa, with began as a discussion of a Vatican official decrying the damage to the Church by dissident heterodox Catholic teachers. This has nothing to do with teaching history. The subject is false catechesis.

I have no problem with my children being taught that historians can not validate the Virgin Birth. That is not false catechesis, as long as they are taught that we believe it is so. In fact, I think it is important that they are taught this, or else they will falsely believe the Church lied to them when they take a regular history course in a public high school or university.

If they are told that the Virgin Birth absolutely didn’t happen, that would be false catechesis.

 

[Richardols]

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.

It is not a matter of fact, but rather a matter of faith. We believe that Jesus is God as a matter of faith. It cannot be verified as a fact. The same with Transubstantiation. We believe it to be true - as a matter of faith. There is no way to prove Transubstantiation except by our assent to Church teaching.

 

[estesbob]

So you want historians to accept angels as historical witnesses? Great. I hope you and Tantum Ergo don’t get together to put on a history seminar.

Historical fact has NOTHING to do with the opinions of Historians.

 

[rlg94086]

Historical fact has NOTHING to do with the opinions of Historians.

Yes, we’ve discussed this ad nauseum. There is more than one definition of a “historical fact” or “historical event.” I really don’t want to go through it again, but you can keep repeating your position over and over again, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Richardols]

Historical fact has NOTHING to do with the opinions of Historians.

Nor with the opinions of Theologians. Theology and History are two different realms.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Great. I hope you and Tantum Ergo don’t get together to put on a history seminar.

Well, as I said, I’m no professor. But since one of my two degrees is a B.A. in History, I hardly think that given the time and opportunity that I would do any worse than the average history teacher in presenting a seminar. At least my bias (not to be insulting, it is certainly true that all people have some sort of bias) would be less harmful to the students, both to their faith (whatever it might be) as well as to their actual chance of learning facts. Having a view of history that is informed or shaped by a Christian faith that is totally in conformity with the magesterium as well as reasonably good if slightly dated classics education, I may not be able to dazzle the cognoscenti with my dancing around debating whether things are historical or historical, or telling my students not what events actually occur but my best guess as to why they occur (of course, I wouldn’t say it’s a guess, I’d present it with all the fanfare of --pardon the expression–gospel truth, because I can always fall back on saying that since it can’t be proven I’m wrong, then I’m probably right!)–but then again, none of those things really involve the imparting of knowledge; and isn’t that what education should be about?

 

[rlg94086]

Well, as I said, I’m no professor. But since one of my two degrees is a B.A. in History, I hardly think that given the time and opportunity that I would do any worse than the average history teacher in presenting a seminar. At least my bias (not to be insulting, it is certainly true that all people have some sort of bias) would be less harmful to the students, both to their faith (whatever it might be) as well as to their actual chance of learning facts. Having a view of history that is informed or shaped by a Christian faith that is totally in conformity with the magesterium as well as reasonably good if slightly dated classics education, I may not be able to dazzle the cognoscenti with my dancing around debating whether things are historical or historical, or telling my students not what events actually occur but my best guess as to why they occur (of course, I wouldn’t say it’s a guess, I’d present it with all the fanfare of --pardon the expression–gospel truth, because I can always fall back on saying that since it can’t be proven I’m wrong, then I’m probably right!)–but then again, none of those things really involve the imparting of knowledge; and isn’t that what education should be about?

IMHO you could do damage to someone’s faith by teaching in such a fashion.

If you present matters of faith (Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc.) as absolute “historic facts” that can’t be questioned, then your pupils when confronted with the logical arguments of someone denying articles of faith, will look back at your “since it can’t be proven I’m wrong, then I’m probably right” truths and wonder…“did TE lie to me? She (he?) said they were absolute truths, but this historical evidence brings it into question.”

It is much better IMO to teach “historic facts” in a manner detached from our faith and then explain what the Church teaches about it. By being able to separate, “historic facts” determined by scholarly research from those which regard matters of faith, it is much easier to argue with a non-believer about such events. Then, you are in a better position to say to someone “it can’t be proven to be wrong” because you understand that it also “can’t be proven to be right” and is an article of faith.

Well, at least that’s the way I teach my kids. I am a convert. I came to the Truth of the Church through knowledge (Philosophy, Theology, History) and prayer. I want my kids to have the same ability to reason through their beliefs, so I encourage them to read and question. We can then have great discussions about our faith. I hope it prepares them well when they run into someone trying to convince them the Church is wrong.

I’m not sure that makes sense. I only have two years of college, so I ain’t so smart.

 

[goofyjim]

Does anyone ever worry about those to the extreme right who, for instance, consider even a homosexual condition by itself grounds for mortal sin? I would worry about these factions as much as I would the liberal side.

 

[rlg94086]

Does anyone ever worry about those to the extreme right who, for instance, consider even a homosexual condition by itself grounds for mortal sin? I would worry about these factions as much as I would the liberal side.

Yes. I make sure that I teach my kids the Church teaching on homosexuality/SSA. It’s very important because despite the non-Catholic teaching of their public school teaching them that homosexuality is a-ok, they also recieve the schoolyard teaching regarding gays - primarily epithets.

It is important that our children learn that SSA is disordered, but that the person who has SSA has a burden they have to bear and is still loved by God.

There is a great CD on Confession I have my kids listen to by Fr. Larry Richards ( secure.catholicity.com/mary/ ) where he recounts a confession he heard by a man in tears who recounts a homosexual experience. Father says something (to the audience) to the effect of “don’t think that your sin is any less than his, just because you believe it is disgusting.” I think that is important for kids to understand. We are all sinners.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First, you go from saying that I’m presenting the Virgin Birth as an “absolute historic fact” and then going on to say “that cannot be questioned.” But again, you’re confusing the issues and missing the point.

Again, I say, either the Virgin Birth took place, or it didn’t.

I take the Bible and the teachings of the Church, some 2000 years of it, and the teachings of the early Church fathers and all the excellent scholars/theologians/historians/chroniclers throughout history ( ) as evidence for the Virgin Birth being an event that took place in history. But obviously people question it (they do so today). You cannot ‘make’ people believe in things, even when you present loads of evidence, if they don’t want to believe. I’m not ‘making you believe’ in what I say, am I? I am not forcing you by presenting my opinion, I’m not even forcing you by saying that this is not just my opinion but my belief, and that it is reinforced by the magesterium.

Further, when those putative pupils are confronted with logical arguments against (as though, of course, all my arguments are somehow anything but logical), you seem to assume that the idea that the Virgin Birth took place is so ludicruous that the students will leap into your “reasonable” hypothesis and consider mine bunkum.

However, as other posters have pointed out, the opposite is even more likely to happen.

Once people stop being “so open minded their brains fall out” and start to question the so called 'logical arguments against" and then actually compare them with the 2000 years worth of teachings and writings from the magesterium. . .

They’re far more likely to wonder why some people want to make them ‘stand for nothing’ in order to seem ‘reasonable’ (ignoring the fact that they are in essence twisting themselves into holding hundreds of contradictory ideas at the same time and never actually stopping to ask if one, or ANY of these ideas are TRUE!!!) and actually start looking for the truth. Something which is found in reason and faith together. Not apart.

 

[rlg94086]

Once people stop being “so open minded their brains fall out” and start to question the so called 'logical arguments against" and then actually compare them with the 2000 years worth of teachings and writings from the magesterium. . .

They’re far more likely to wonder why some people want to make them ‘stand for nothing’ in order to seem ‘reasonable’ (ignoring the fact that they are in essence twisting themselves into holding hundreds of contradictory ideas at the same time and never actually stopping to ask if one, or ANY of these ideas are TRUE!!!) and actually start looking for the truth. Something which is found in reason and faith together. Not apart.

Again, we are talking past each other. I don’t teach my kids to be “open minded” about whether the Virgin Birth happened or not. I teach them the “historic facts” that we know from scholarly research, and I teach them the Truth of the Virgin Birth, as taught by the Church.

You can teach anyway you like, I will continue to raise my kids to be logical, faithful Catholics who can stand up for their faith in an argument without going to the “because the Church says so” answer.