Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

  • Thread starter Thread starter fix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tantum_ergo said:
Again I say, then apparently you do not accept the gospel of Luke as evidence. I guess the “good news” is nothing other than a ‘good story’?

Do you accept the Resurrection? There was no ‘witness’ to this; there was an empty tomb and there were ‘angel witnesses’ and there were statements from the apostles who saw Jesus afterward. . .but I guess historically speaking you can’t really accept the Resurrection because nobody really saw it actually happen?

You see, these concepts of yours strike me as not just silly but dangerous.

Because once you have accepted that “historical documentation” somehow is ‘above’ belief in that it can be proven but belief is just a ‘choice’. . .

then you have reduced God’s sending of His Son to suffer and die for us as ‘unreal.’

The whole point of Jesus’s life and death and resurrection was that it was a historical event. It happened in time. It deserves the same sort of recognition that it happened like any other event in time. Making it into something “outside of” or transcending time, and making it into something that is not ‘reasonable’ or able to be believed by reason. . . that makes it into some sort of gnostic ‘puzzle’. Since there is no ‘proof’ that Jesus was physical matter (flesh and blood) one falls back onto the ‘conceptual’ Jesus, the mythological Jesus, the ‘pure faith’ Jesus.

Ignoring the man who lived and walked the earth. . . Jesus.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly a short while back, a professor (I think a priest) at a Catholic university in Australia was reprimanded by Rome for teaching that the Resurrection of Jesus was not an historical event.
 
irenaeus1 said:
If I recall correctly a short while back, a professor (I think a priest) at a Catholic university in Australia was reprimanded by Rome for teaching that the Resurrection of Jesus was not an historical event.
Click to expand...
I would just like to know how people like this get into these positions of teaching, or even why they want to teach.:confused:
 
Richardols said:
Accept only in faith. One can’t use theology to prove history any more than one can use history to prove theology.
Click to expand...
I am not saying the one proves the other. What I am saying is belief in an article of faith that is based on an event that happened in time necessitates that both be true. If we believe that Jesus is Son of God and that He was born of the virgin Mary and became man, then it also means that we believe that he entered into human history via the incarnation; that is, the incarnation is an historical event. One proving the other is irrelevant, but both must be true simultaneously. If we believe that the virgin birth is true (in faith), then it must be true that the actual event in time occurred where Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. Under no scenario can we claim that the virgin birth be true (in faith), yet Mary was in actuality impregnated by Joseph, a Roman soldier, or some other man. That’s why faith in the virgin birth necessarily requires the historical event being true.
 
patg said:
I’m sorry you have trouble understanding the difference between truth and dogmatic truth.
Click to expand...
And you don’t recognize a logical problem in asserting two kinds of truth that can contradict each other? Can you point me to the passage in DV or any other authoritative Church document that defines the difference between truth and dogmatic truth, or even refers to such a principle?
I’m sure you’ll tell me that this is somehow related to believing the infancy narratives are teaching truth rather than history,
Click to expand...
No, I wasn’t going to say that.
 
irenaeus1 said:
The Church does not allow you to deny that the virgin birth, or the miracles of Jesus, or the Resurrection of Jesus did not actually take place in time.
Click to expand...
Great post/explanation of “historical event.” You are right, verifying an historical event was not the issue, but whether or not we believe it happened.
 
Richardols said:
Nor with the opinions of Theologians. Theology and History are two different realms.
Click to expand...
In the alternate opening prayer (the Collect) for this Sunday’s Mass, it states the following: “In history’s moment when all was ready, you sent your Son to dwell in time…” How dare the Church claim that the Son of God broke into human history… that’s confusing faith and history, isn’t it?
 
Richardols said:
Believe is the operative word. It may or may not be actual fact. We believe such things to be true or facts as a matter of faith, not necessariy as a matter of empirical reality.
Click to expand...
Can the Virgin Birth be true by faith but not true as a historical event?
 
patg said:
Again I say that this is a meaningless statement in this context since no one can verify whether it happened or not. You believe it as a matter of dogma but this event is unsupportable by historical analysis - there just isn’t any evidence.
Click to expand...
Every time you comment on this you always state the total lack of evidence in the most categorical terms.

Historical analysis is predicated on primary sources, witnesses, and primary documents, not, of course, on the a priori theories of the historians (e.g., feminist theory, Marxist theory, demytholigizing theory, evolutionary theory, modernist theory) being inferred back into the evidence).

Why do you exclude the NT, Mary, the apostles, from the data of historical analysis? Exactly why have you disqualified the testimony of the Scriptures?
 
Richardols said:
Believe is the operative word. It may or may not be actual fact. We believe such things to be true or facts as a matter of faith, not necessariy as a matter of empirical reality.
Click to expand...
So you profess to believe things that are not actual fact, that are not true?
 
flazor1 said:
So you profess to believe things that are not actual fact, that are not true?
Click to expand...
I believe in Transubstantiation, e.g., as a matter of faith. I believe it to be true as a matter of faith. I defy anyone to prove that it is a fact outside the realm of faith. If it could be proven except by an act of faith, it would be virtually impossible to deny. The same holds true for any belief we have that can be accepted only as an act of faith.
 
estesbob said:
Can the Virgin Birth be true by faith but not true as a historical event?
Click to expand...
Acceptance of the event by faith is one thing, providing evidence for its historical reality is another.

The Moslems believe in all faith that Mohammed, after meeting with the Prophets, including Jesus, rode to Heaven - the famous “Night Journey” to speak with God. To a Moslem, that event is absolutely true by faith. It may well not be true as a historical event, and non-Moslems would not accept it as history. The same would be true of the Assumption, which we Catholics alone accept as true - by faith. Even other Christians would argue that it was not true as a historical event.
 
Richardols said:
Acceptance of the event by faith is one thing, providing evidence for its historical reality is another.

The Moslems believe in all faith that Mohammed, after meeting with the Prophets, including Jesus, rode to Heaven - the famous “Night Journey” to speak with God. To a Moslem, that event is absolutely true by faith. It may well not be true as a historical event, and non-Moslems would not accept it as history. The same would be true of the Assumption, which we Catholics alone accept as true - by faith. Even other Christians would argue that it was not true as a historical event.
Click to expand...
Thats not what asked you. Can the Virgin Birth be true by faith but not true as a historical event? If the answer is yes our religion is a sham.
 
This is an interesting thread although, at times, over my head. I just want to pass along something that a priest told me when I was young. I am not sure of the circumstances anymore, but I asked him why we Catholics didn’t study the Bible like my Baptist friends. He replied that I could spend my entire life in studying the Bible, reading all the historical texts I could find, and I still could not learn as much as the collective wisdom of the Church. The Church has spent centuries and untold man hours verifying the truth of our faith. He said it would be stupid of me to try and reinvent the wheel. Just accept the Church’s teachings and interpretations and I would be led to salvation–which should be my only goal.

So the Church, in her wisdom, says that the evidence is the Virgin Birth is a fact. The Church has studied all the testimonies and documents and come to the conclusion that the Virgin Birth did, in fact, occur. Why is this so hard for people to accept? The experts have studied the material and reached a conclusion. I accept that conclusion, even as I would accept the conclusion of my doctor that I have a broken leg. I don’t presume to know more than my doctor, so I accept what he says. I guess that I could put off treatment until I studied all the medical books and I could verify what he said. Me I would rather get my leg fixed and be done with it.
 
I have mostly stayed out of this.

It seems to me that the things I see are actually there (but I take that on “faith” that my sight, taste and intellect are all working at the time).

But, those things that happen to other people I can not see, taste or touch nor prove or testify to so I take them in faith. The part that takes “faith” is that I can believe what others have said they observed. Not religious faith but “faith” none the less in the fact that things told to me are true. Then, it is now up to me to decide if I will or will not believe these things.

I love to read history. But, history is taken on “faith” when written even if the person that wrote it was there at the time. Our perceptions are bent with our personal emotions and preconceptions.

I believe that there are some historical facts that can be proven (these are things I can taste, feel, touch and see) archaeological digs can back up what was formally just supposition. Yet, there are many things that will never be proven, nor should they be proven. For to require proof of all things Holy Mother Church teaches is to take our faith into a purely scientific realm. God wants us to take things on FAITH that He has done for us. God never said He (yes HE) wanted us to prove to others that He existed. We are to spread the Word not the artifacts and scientific facts.

So faith is a part of all of our lives. Some people just don’t admit it.
 
estesbob said:
Thats not what asked you. Can the Virgin Birth be true by faith but not true as a historical event? If the answer is yes our religion is a sham.
Click to expand...
Whom are you asking? Catholics or Christians in general? Can Transubstantiation be true by faith but not true as a historical event? To you and me, no, because we accept it as a key part of our Catholicism as a matter of faith, not because we accepted first it as a historical event. To most other Christians, the answer is yes.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Yet, there are many things that will never be proven, nor should they be proven. For to require proof of all things Holy Mother Church teaches is to take our faith into a purely scientific realm. God wants us to take things on FAITH that He has done for us. God never said He (yes HE) wanted us to prove to others that He existed. We are to spread the Word not the artifacts and scientific facts.

So faith is a part of all of our lives. Some people just don’t admit it.
Click to expand...
Brava! Very well put, KE. That is exactly how the Church sees it. On the other hand, we often see Fundamentalists trying to prove what’s in the Bible empirically, as though a reliance on faith was insufficient - look at all their speculation on the location of Noah’s Ark, for example, or their reading the newspapers to seek reinforcement for their end times speculations.
 
SnorterLuster said:
The Church has spent centuries and untold man hours verifying the truth of our faith.

So the Church, in her wisdom, says that the evidence is the Virgin Birth is a fact. The Church has studied all the testimonies and documents and come to the conclusion that the Virgin Birth did, in fact, occur. Why is this so hard for people to accept?
Click to expand...
If it were so obvious, none could reject it just as none could reject that you have a broken leg. It takes no act of faith to accept the injury you would have, and none to accept that setting the leg would led to its repair. But, to accept what the Church says about the Virgin Birth does require a leap of faith. Also, the Church does not go about verifying our truths - it declares them to be such and invites us to believe. No pope has ever said that this or that is “proof” of a particular doctrine.
 
Richardols said:
Whom are you asking? Catholics or Christians in general? Can Transubstantiation be true by faith but not true as a historical event? To you and me, no, because we accept it as a key part of our Catholicism as a matter of faith, not because we accepted first it as a historical event. To most other Christians, the answer is yes.
Click to expand...
I am asking **you **if the Virgin Birth can be true by faith but not true as a historical event? It is not a trick question. IMO if it happened it happened regardless of what anyone else may think.
 
estesbob said:
I am asking **you **if the Virgin Birth can be true by faith but not true as a historical event? It is not a trick question. IMO if it happened it happened regardless of what anyone else may think.
Click to expand...
I accept it because of my Catholic faith, so yes, the Virgin Birth was a historical event.

As I also said, the Moslems believe the Night Ride is true as a matter of faith. If it actual happened, it too did happen regardless of what any non-Moslems might think.

In either case, no empirical proof is possible. Acceptance is by faith, and belief in the factual event is thus by faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top