Posted on 03/30/2011 10:52:11 AM PDT by WPaCon
Zionist Conspirator:
Your way off base. The real presence in the Eucharist, if it could be proved scientifically, would be problematic. It is ultimately a mystery of Faith, which is what the sacraments in Greek were called “mysterion” in Greek was translated into “sacramentum” by St. Jerome and our english words Mystery and Sacrament are derived from those Greek ande Latin Words.
Transubstantiation does not require scientific verification, neither does the Incarnation, the Trinity or the Resurrection. Transubstantiation is a dogma that is based on metaphysics [i.e. philosophy].
All the Church requires is that I believe that God created the world and all things seen and unseen and that God created the world from Nothing. Whether the 6 days in Genesis is “Literal” or “Allegorical” does not, regardless of what view you take, change any doctrine or dogma of the Church. All the Creeds of the early Church affirmed that God created everything and the fact that science suggests that the world is older than 6,000 years does not shake my faith at all as I don’t believe Science and Faith need to be at odds, as ultimately the scientific truths that are discovered and the theological truths revealed by Christ to his Church are not add odds as they find their source from the same God.
I never new you left the Catholic Church over this issue of the literal 6 days in Genesis. And I could care less what individual RCIA directors and priests taught as their is a standard of Catholic teaching and it ain’t the local Priest, Nun, DRE or RCIA director.
For the record, the “modern Church” as verdugo calls it only reaffirmed what Pope Bendedict XIV [Pope from 1740 to 1758] stated as the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia linked from newadvent.org indicates:
“There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them. Speaking of such revelations as (e.g.) those of St. Hildegard (approved in part by Eugenius III), St. Bridget (by Boniface IX), and St. Catherine of Siena (by Gregory XI) Benedict XIV says: “It is not obligatory nor even possible to give them the assent of Catholic faith, but only of human faith, in conformity with the dictates of prudence, which presents them to us as probable and worthy of pius belief)” (De canon., III, liii, xxii, II). “
Here is a link from EWTN which also clearly makes reference to Pope Bendedict XIV’s clear teaching on this question from the 18th century:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/apparitions.htm
In closing, Verdugo is 100% wrong in this post.
Why did you commit yourself to a faith that you couldn’t understand?
That appears to be all there is left. Just take a look at the "conservative Catholics" on Free Republic who insist that cosmogony is a purely scientific subject but who refuse to listen to that same scientist when he rejects a miracle they want to believe in because it's "Catholic."
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.
I used to admire Robert Sungenis. I even exchanged e-mails with him. But the man is an anti-Semite. That's not just my opinion. I've been around the block and I know the real thing when I see it.
I'm sorry that you think it isn't anti-Semitic to post a link to a site that attacks the book of Deuteronomy.
Transubstantiation does not require scientific verification, neither does the Incarnation, the Trinity or the Resurrection. Transubstantiation is a dogma that is based on metaphysics [i.e. philosophy].
I suppose science doesn't have the right to say that humans can't be born without the participation of a human father as well.
Everything you have just said applies just as much to the creation of the universe in six days some 5770 years ago. Science has no more access to one than to the other. It is only sociological considerations, not wanting to be like "trailer trash," that separates cosmogony from every other supernatural phenomenon. The Catholic Church doesn't want "white trash," and I am "white trash," therefore I can never submit to such a church.
All the Church requires is that I believe that God created the world and all things seen and unseen and that God created the world from Nothing. Whether the 6 days in Genesis is “Literal” or “Allegorical” does not, regardless of what view you take, change any doctrine or dogma of the Church.
In other words, the Catholic Church does not believe that G-d told the truth in the genealogies in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. The Catholic Church says that G-d is a liar (chas vechilah!). Some "one true church" you have going there.
All the Creeds of the early Church affirmed that God created everything and the fact that science suggests that the world is older than 6,000 years does not shake my faith at all as I don’t believe Science and Faith need to be at odds, as ultimately the scientific truths that are discovered and the theological truths revealed by Christ to his Church are not add odds as they find their source from the same God.
You people are very good at regurgitating the same song. You have it memorized like Fundamentalist Protestants memorize Bible verses.
Regardless of what the creeds do or don't say, the G-d-dictated text of Genesis gives a description of the creation of the world and then a series of genealogies that teach plainly that there were only 2448 years and 26 generations between the creation of Adam and the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. You obviously don't believe this because as a Catholic you feel you have to accept the higher critical theories of nineteenth century liberal German Protestants in order to prove you are a loyal Catholic and not "trailer trash." Bully for you. Any church or religion that says that G-d's Divinely dictated Torah contains untruths (and "truths" include "mundane facts" as well as "profound" stuff) is itself a liar.
I never new you left the Catholic Church over this issue of the literal 6 days in Genesis. And I could care less what individual RCIA directors and priests taught as their is a standard of Catholic teaching and it ain’t the local Priest, Nun, DRE or RCIA director.
There is a great deal you don't know.
It wasn't only the Catholic denial of the Genesis account of creation, though that was certainly part of it. It was the whole attitude of irreverence to G-d's Written Word (and yes, I acknowledge there is an Oral Word as well) that endorsed every theory of liberal Protestantism in order to avoid "bibliolatry."
It's sociological: the Catholic Church isn't for all people. It's only for certain types of people, and "rednecks" are not included, not wanted, and not welcome.
Meanwhile Catholic peasants in Italy wind snakes around statues, but at least they aren't embarrassing the Church by believing the text of Genesis is factually accurate.
Asks the advocate of infant baptism.
I accepted the historical record and thought I could accept inherently what I did not understand explicitly.
I was unaware the Catholic Church had such high intellectual standards for its membership. I guess those illiterate Guatemalan peasants are all towering intellectual giants. Why haven't they perfected cold fusion?
Oh that's right . . . Guatemalan peasants are okay because they're not trailer trash!
CTrent1564 responded: Verdugo is 100% wrong in this post.
Verdugo answers: Can't say 100% because what you posted only addressed 1/3 of the subjects that I mentioned. You didn't address at all the promotion of evolution, nor the liberal criticisms of scripture.
Now, concerning the third point, Fatima, it is not just another private revelation, it is substantiated by the greatest forecast of the future(That the Miracle of the Sun would occur at such a date and time), and the greatest Miracle of all time (70,000 people were witnesses. They and the ground were soaking wet one minute, and the next they and the groung were dry, plus the Miracle of the Sun):
Now, EWTN promotes the LIE that Fatima is an event that is past us, that Pope JPII consecrated Russia, and Russia was converted in 1987. EWTN also says the Third Secret was fully revealed. This stance in 100% in accord with the progressivists party line, the party line of the enemies of Fatima.
Where do you stand?
??? I understand your 2nd para, but the rest...?
You mean my sarcastic reference to your implied claim that every Catholic thoroughly understands his religion--even illiterate Guatemalan peasants?
That’s what it was? Ok then
verdugo:
I stand with Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI. Fatima, like Lourdes, etc, is private revelation and has always been seen as such and can not ever supercede public revelation which ended with the death of the Apostle St. John.
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains how biological changes occur and adapt. There is nothing wrong with it as a scientific theory and that is what it is, it can’t answer how something came into being from nothing, that is where philosophy and theology point to God creating the world from nothing ,which is what the Creeds affirm, I believe in God the Father almighty creator of Heaven and earth and all things seen and unseen. Evolution does not nor can it ever explain that and to pit those two together is intellectually stupid, in my view.
The Historical critical method is not my favorite methodology fo Scripture exegesis but it was given Papal approval to be used in the study of scripture. The problem with it is that many Biblical scholars have taken this approach and separated from the Doctrine of the Church, Creeds and the Patristic Consensus, etc and on that not, Pope Benedict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazareth Volume 1 and 2 has criticized.
For the record, these Papal Documents all called for the Historical Critical Method to be used as a complement to the other methodologies when studying the Sacred Scriptures:
1. Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter On the Study of Sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus, 1893
2. Pope Benedict XV: Encyclical Letter Commemorating the Fifteenth Centenary of the Death of St. Jerome,
Spiritus Paraclitus, 1920
3. Pope Pius XII: Encyclical Letter Promoting Biblical Studies, Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943
Verdugo, please not that all 3 of these documents occurred before Vatican II.
CTrent1564 answered: I stand with Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI. Fatima, like Lourdes, etc, is private revelation
Verdugo asks: That does not answer my question above. Please respond to my question.
verdugo:
I am not concerned whether Pope John Paul II “conscerated Russia” in such a matter that satisfied you or any or Sedevacantist leaning group or extreme SSPX types. Pope John Paul II did consecrate Russia and Communism in Poland and then Russia collapsed. So, I am ok with that position.
If that makes me an enemy of Fatima according to your views, then I am ok with that.
Only among FR Catholics (and Novus Ordo Catholics I suppose), do I find this fantasy that “Russia collapsed”. Do yourself a favor and post an article that communism died in 1987 in the political forum of FR, and you’ll get a lesson in reality.
After being on FR religion forum for whatever time, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Catholics on it are not of the same intellectual caliber in their knowledge of the faith, as the people on the political forum are on the reality of tWorld affairs.
I thought there was a hope that you might possess the intellectual backbone to debate in the arena of ideas, unlike the other FR Catholics who can only use character assassination, and detraction. However, by your words, you have shown that you are no different than them.
I wonder how many Guatemalan Catholics “believe in” evolution.
Sometimes I do too, but the Catholic spokesmen who continually take swipes at creationism certainly don't seem embarrassed by them, do they? Genesis simply isn't part of folk Catholic piety.
OTOH, one FReeper has stated in the past that every Catholic and Orthodox illiterate peasant in the world who isn't an evolutionist is under Fundamentalist Protestant influence and isn't being a good Catholic/Orthodox.
After being on FR religion forum for whatever time, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Catholics on it are not of the same intellectual caliber in their knowledge of the faith
Is there any chance that you might notice something wrong with the above pair of statements? I'm rather pessimistic on the possibility, but I do have some small bit of hope.
"After being on FR religion forum for whatever time, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Catholics on it are not of the same intellectual caliber in their knowledge of the faith, as the people on the political forum are on the reality of World affairs."
Adding the rest makes no difference at all, and leaving it off doesn’t turn what you did say into a misquote.
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.