Posted on 03/30/2011 10:52:11 AM PDT by WPaCon
OK??
The content of the Bible was written in common language to common people, just like my communication with you.
I suggest to you that the message that God wished to communicate is as understandable as yours and my communication. The gist of God’s commands is clear and unambiguous.
We make two grave errors in reading. First, we feel that the message must be made more mystical (that’s why I suggested you were trying to read my mind in your response to my question - that’s what we do when we insist on over-analyzing doctrines like the Trinity).
Second, we read the Bible with lenses of Greek philosophy, instead of reading it as a Hebrew would understand it. That is, the Hebrew had zero interest in speculative philosophy. The notion of infallibility would be a total mystery to him. The idea of a super-analytical approach to the “steps” of salvation would be abhorrent - it’s a holistic concept. The idea of an “omnipotent” God would be true, but irrelevant, since God chose to limit his own power by forming covenant in history with human beings. Covenant is by definition a limitation of power of both partners by imposing obligations in writing (which can be understood).
Note that when Paul condensed the message down to what the gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, he made a series of historical statements, not dogmatic statements. That was very Hebrew of him. Either it happened as he said or it didn’t. It’s not hard to understand and doesn’t require much interpretation. If it didn’t happen, the rest of the words in the Bible are worse than useless. If it did, then that’s where I’m called to make my stand - the historical truth (or falsehood) of the death, burial, resurrection and appearance of Jesus.
The heresies, the “misinterpretations”, of the past and present simply deny these historical events in some form.
I know you are more accustomed to short very concise questions and answers, but I hope what I’m saying makes some sense to you.
I agree with your suggestion, but I believe God’s message to each of us is different, more individual. Some receive it through the bible and others, differently.
But you see, you are now dealing with another topic, not the one related to this conversation. You asked originally about “infallibility,” not personal messages from God.
What is the nature of the God who, as you suggested, is giving guidance individually to you and/or others?
I do not know the nature of God.
How do you judge the quality of the counsel of this unknown entity?
To me it’s self-evedential as the way God makes us. I don’t judge it.
Which was every bit as much the product of human interpretation as any contemporary or subsequent "heresy".
The "apostolic tradition" simply happens to be the one which was adopted by the Roman state and therefore backed with the force of law.
One can be an Arian or a Nestorian or a Socinian, each of whom could make their own Biblical case, and be no less a Christian.
Notary Sojac:
I disagree. You would be a heterodox Christian at best, although Arianism was in theological terms, the more serious heretical doctrine of the 3 you mentioned. And the Apostolic Tradition preceded the Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome by almost 300 years as it wasn’t until the Emperor Theodosius in 380 that he decalred Catholic Christianity and the Nicene Creed as the legitimate Church and expression of the Faith for the Roman Empire.
And this is what passes for "conservatism" in the Catholic world? Blech.
Belloc's fulminations against Biblical criticism ring hollow in that 1)he doesn't seem to disagree with it to any appreciable degree, and 2)the Catholic Church has embraced Protestant higher criticism wholeheartedly precisely because it discredits Protestantism's religious authority. Plus, if one is going to criticize Protestants for "worshiping the text of scripture" then obviously one's attitude was higher critical to begin with.
Belloc ping (though you probably already noticed).
I notice that whenever Fundamentalist Protestants believe something the Church fathers believed about the "old testament," the first eleven chapters of Genesis, or the Creation, the belief of the fathers is dismissed as "they were men of their time." But when the Church fathers believed something that Fundamentalist Protestants simply cannot stretch their minds around or believe in good conscience that Catholic apologists suddenly treat those opinions as infallible and non-negotiable.
Hence real presence is "absolutely essential," and six day young earth creationism is almost banned.
It's also interesting how different Chesterton and Belloc were in so many ways, yet the term "Chesterbelloc" has such currency.
Did you take my computer advice, such as it was?
zionist Conspirator:
I think you are mistating your case. One can believe in literal 6 day of creation or one can choose not too, as Caatholic as that ultimately is a scientific question not a theological one. The theological issue Whether the Eucharist is truly the sacrament of Christ’s body of Blood and thus partaking of the Eucharist is nothing short of communion with God, that is a theological position that the Fathers were consistent on.
So . . . is this why the stories it contains allegedly aren't true?
Sir (or Madam), you are wrong--dead wrong. And the position which you are taking, though you have probably never thought very deeply about it, is hypocritical.
Transubstantiation is every bit as scientifically impossible as a creation from nothing in six days some 5770 or so years ago. One is no more possible than the other. And science has just as much right to pontificate (pardon the expression) on transubstantiation as it does on cosmogony.
Similarly, I put it to you that the resurrection of a dead person back to life, the conception and birth of a human child without a father (including the miraculous preservation of the mother's hymen), the multiplication of loaves and fishes, the transformation of water into wine, are all also scientifically impossible. Given the allegedly eternal, immutable, absolutely uniform mechanistic laws of the physical universe none of these things could have possibly happened, and science has the same right to say so as it does to deny the "miraculous" creation of everything from nothing in a short period a few millenia ago. They are all equally scientifically impossible. Your tortured logic in excusing "simple child-like faith" on these other issues while defending the right of science to overrule revelation as to the facts of cosmogony is simply illogical, irrational, and constitutes a breath-taking example of a double-standard. You have absolutely no legitimate logical grounds on which to defer to science with regard to the latter while screaming "miracle!" with regard to the former. None whatsoever.
What then is the cause of this bizarre inconsistency? I will tell you exactly what it is: it's sociology. It's the simple fact that transubstantiation is "our miracle" and six day young earth creationism is for "those stupid inbred morons in the trailer parks." Six Day Young Earth Creationism is marked forever as "the belief of the enemy" and suspect for that very reason. Just as Fundamentalist Protestants interpret everything in the bible literally except for the words of consecration (precisely because of its association with hated "priestcraft") Catholics have acquired an absolute allergy to the first eleven chapters of Genesis, the Book of Jonah, and other such parts of the Bible. It is a test of ethno-cultural loyalty to attack creationism (or at least defend the possibility of evolutionism and the claims of higher criticism) to prove one isn't "one of them." Do you honestly think that it's that difficult to figure out?
Let me tell you a little story. I joined the Catholic Church during the catechumenate of '83-'84 and I tried my best to stay loyal for six years. I spent hours at the library reading the Catholic Encyclopedia trying to understand the faith to which I had committed myself because there was a whole bunch of stuff that isn't taught to catechumens any more. I felt like was being "disloyal" because my conscience wouldn't allow me to accept evolution, higher criticism, or even the allowance of them, yet I had become convinced that the Catholic Church was the "one true religion" to which it was my duty to be loyal. Do you have any idea what kind of mental anguish that caused? Of course you don't!
I was basically forced out of the Catholic Church twenty-one years ago because there was an unbridgeable gulf between not only my conscience but my entire identity and the Catholic religion. What kind of religion baptizes totem poles and teaches its children that Mary made the sun dance but which promotes evolution and higher criticism and contempt for those who will not surrender to those abominable concepts???
It makes no difference to me how much Catholic FReepers thunder with righteous indignation about a "one true church" that is so liberal that it condemns Fundamentalism as "fanaticism." I don't care about threats of "hell" (assuming Catholics even believe in "hell" any more; that could be another part of the ancient faith that got thrown out because of its association with "white trash culture").
My experience is that the Catholic Church and Catholic culture despises me and everyone like me simply because we grew up with Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark instead of some medieval pagan superstition that later got "baptized."
To conclude as I began, your rejection of young earth creationism and total Biblical inerrancy in the face of their acceptance by most of the Church fathers (because they were "men of their time") constitutes a double-standard so hideous and obvious that only sociological reasons could be the cause of it. Otherwise you would recognize the hypocrisy of the position you propound.
Zionist Conspirator:
Ok, whatever. I have no desire to respond to your rant.
Have a nice day
My "rant" was based on simple logic, which Catholics claim to revere. But I guess everything goes out the window when the Church's Genesisphobia pops up.
I'm just beginning to read Belloc and Chesterton, so I am curious about how they were different in so many ways. Can you explain how?
The modernist/progressivist controlled “New Church” teaches that Fatima was not important, a private revelation which one can accept or reject. It is the “New Church” that promotes evolution and liberal criticism of scripture.
As you know, Robert Sungenis, the Catholic, has written extensively on the subjects of which you complain. However, even you have fallen for the progressivist tactic of discrediting him by labeling him an anti-semite.
You left a modernist/Progressivist/liberal “New Church” for Fundamentalism. I feel sorry for you, that you never saw the real Church. I was out of the church for like 30 years, but I came back directly to tradition(except for like 3 weeks), having never attended the Novus ordo during all those years, except for funerals and weddings. Deo Gratia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.