Theology

[NorthDakota]

Wait, are Ouija board real? I thought they were just a kid's game.

You probably think jumanji is just a kids game too.

 

[IrishLion]

You probably think jumanji is just a kids game too.

Non-believers gonna get us all in a (jungle) world of trouble.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I don't know how you explain that. Perhaps flawed understanding of just *what* the individual had actually been exposed to previously? I believe that these mental issues manifest themselves from a subconscious place that evolved from previous exposure to religion or belief. It seems natural that an individual, particularly a child or young adult with a still-rapidly developing brain might have retained, subconsciously, bits and pieces of Latin here, some Italian there. Suddenly, when that mental "break" occurs that people believe to be possession, and that person is shouting phrases in a language that "they've never been exposed to," there is no explanation.

1. I call bullshit on all of these people having never been exposed to Latin or Spanish or other foreign languages. If they go to church, or are from Latin America, or any area of Western Europe, they've been exposed to every language, and in decent amounts.

So they have an as-yet undiagnosed and undiscovered mental illness that only an individual raised in/around religion could develop, due to the effect that spiritual development has on an individual's brain, and that illness manifests itself in violent outbursts, using the retained information from that subconscious as ammunition.

So where a trained medical professional has no explanation for how this Catholic chick might know some Latin, and so assumes it must be a demon, I see a chick that probably retained bits and pieces of Latin in church, where duh of course she's been exposed to foreign languages. If not church, then television, movies, books, etc. (This also depends on an allowance that our subconscious is mighty with it's potential to retain information that we might never recall in our waking moments, which is a belief that I hold)

That is more plausible to me than a demon spending time on the earthly plane of existence and inhabiting the body of a random individual.

2. As for knowledge of "unknowable" details that some possessed individuals seem to display, I would probably be more inclined to believe that they are using common "generalization" techniques, akin to what a psychic does.



To the first part, I'm not trying to say that I'm not open to the occult. I don't know if there is a "Satan," but I do believe that there is bad energy/karma out there, and I agree that messing with a Ouija Board is a legitimate magnet for that energy.

As for the second part, I subscribe to the belief "I don't care who you are or what you believe. Just don't be a dick."

An Atheist that lives a long and just life, knowing of God but refusing to believe, is probably safer in the event that there IS a Heaven, than a devout Catholic that beats his children and ignores the poor guy on the street corner every time he goes to the bar.

1. Even if she were exposed to various Latin phrases and internalized it and logged it in her subconscious, when would she have been exposed to the phrase "I am Satan", "We are Legion", "Kill him" etc. I have never heard those phrases or even some of the words (Legion) uttered in Mass. And I've gone to a number of Extraordinary form Masses where the entire thing is in Latin. I'm definitely interested in hearing a plausible explanation.

2. I don't know how a family member dying of ovarian cancer is a generalization that someone could find through perception alone. Or do you disagree?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

. . .

Bogs, that you feel this way doesn't surprise me at all. It's in line other such assertions like:

• Jesus had brothers and sisters;
• Mary Magdalene was an apostle, which was immediately covered up by misogynistic Christian patriarchs;
• Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers; etc.

What a coincidence that Jesus turns out to be such a progressive fellow, who's teachings perfectly support and in no way challenge the beliefs of modern secular liberals! Most of the "scholarship" pushing these views is coming from secular liberals who are explicitly setting out to "demythologize" Jesus, and they always seem to find exactly what they've brought with them to the texts. Polemicists make bad historians.
. . .

Well, Whiskey, I don't think you have much of an idea of of how I think. Or why. Or what goes into it.

I do see from what you have written, that you have made a faithful attempt to translate it into your thinking.

I will be the first to admit that probably isn't a recipe for success.

I assume you are either stating (wrongly) that I have stated what you have listed as unequivocal fact and unqualified opinions. If not, that these are both for 'modern secular liberals.'

Either way, I will comment on them for you with my opinion, and the best that I can, factually.

First on your use of the term 'modern secular liberals.' I think adding modern is redundant. I don't think there has ever been a time where people have had the freedom, let alone the desire to separate culture and politics from religion. Yes, clearly the first time was with the birth of the United States. And in fact, anywhere in the world where that is possible today, it is because of the sacrifices made by citizens of the United States.

Without going into the tyranny of religions, or getting into the back and forth of what is good and moral, and what was bad, and how the Pope is much nicer now that they have taken his Army away, let me approach it differently.

I for years, I mean most of my life have had a problem in conversing with people who wanted to label me; Conservative, Liberal, Right, Left, pro this, anti that, now 'modern,' (not bad,) secular (as opposed to?), liberal, (oh, there we go again.) And then it occurred to me, almost right next door, in a political thread, and I brought it back here in an earlier post : There is a spectrum of thinking, at one end of a line segment expressing that, you might have dichotomous thinking, at the other dialectic thinking.

I don't care which you express as right or left, or which you support as right or wrong. I will say that interpreting real life, or reality is best expressed by dialectic thinking, whereas, more ancient thinking, that which represented earlier man is much more dichotomous in nature. As far as mental health, ethics, and spiritual growth, stronger dialectic thinking, superior to the emotional representation is more efficient. Maybe even required. Not intelligence. Not passion. Just the ability to see things for what they are, with a bit more acuity. And, yes. Of course too much 'dialecticism' can lead to madness.

So to the list :

"Jesus had brothers and sisters; -" I may have said in posting and have said, the New Testament specifically refers to Jesus as having siblings, because that is a 'fact,' it does. I may have also offered an opinion about anyone who would even refuse to discuss the idea, when they consider the body of works the divine, inspired word of God.

Matthew 12:46,
46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, khis mother and his lbrothers* stood outside, asking to speak to him.1

Luke 8:19,
19 rThen his mother and shis brothers* came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.
* Or brothers and sisters. In New Testament usage, depending on the context, the plural Greek word adelphoi (translated “brothers”) may refer either to brothers or to brothers and sisters; also verses

20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.”

21 But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those twho hear the word of God and do it.”

Mark 3:31
31 qAnd his mother and his rbrothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

Brothers : James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13:55
55 pIs not this qthe carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not rhis brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Matthew 13:56
56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

John 7:1-10
Jesus at the Feast of Booths
7 After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because pthe Jews 1 were seeking to kill him. 2 Now qthe Jews’ Feast of rBooths was at hand. 3 sSo his brothers 2 said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, t show yourself to the world.” 5 u For not even vhis brothers believed in him. 6 Jesus said to them, w “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but x it hates me because I testify about it that yits works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not 3 going up to this feast, for z my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
10 But after a his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.

Acts 1:14
14 All these fwith one accord gwere devoting themselves to prayer, together with hthe women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and ihis brothers.3

Galatians 1:19
19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James hthe Lord’s brother.

"Mary Magdalene was an apostle, which was immediately covered up by misogynistic Christian patriarchs; -" I have never been one to believe in Dan Brown, nor have I been one to believe in the last man standing thesis of the obvious shift shown in Church orthodoxy. Magdalene wasn't a prostitute, and was most probably a relatively wealthy woman who may in fact have contributed financially to Jesus, and his Apostles. Everybody has to distinguish between the words Apostle and Disciple. I have said I believe her to be a disciple of Jesus.

And clearly, it wasn't covered up immediately. It was in the fourth and fifth century. By the sixth century, Gregory of Tours, called her a virtuous woman. So there was back and forth.

But the important point was that Mary Magdalene is the woman that appears in the Gospel's with the second greatest frequency, behind Mary, Jesus' mother. And, in all four Gospels, she is the first person to see the Risen Jesus!

I could write 200 pages on this, but it probably has been done. Read it yourself. And it ain't from sketchy sources, either, Buck!


The third one, I don't think I have ever stated any presumption about anyone's sexual orientation, but I can see how this might be a big thing for some.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Strangest.
Post.
Ever.

From what source did you read Thomas Aquinas going mad?

Also, it sounds like from your vantage:

Thomas Jefferson >> The Church

Interesting theological perspective.

Maybe the strange part isn't the post itself.

This is going to be a long post, because I am going to document what I say. Part of the strangeness may be that many listen to the little 'blurb' they read in history or catechism class, and assume that is the sum total of all that was.

Not so.

I attempted to make a distinction for the sake of this thread. That distinction comes somewhere during the age of enlightenment. So figure if there is eight hundred years between Aquinas and us, at about the half to two-thirds point.

Until that Western Civilization has one prevailing form of government, social order, law, mores, financial system, etc. There was no rule of law, no capitalism, no republicanism, no democracy, no classical liberalism, or conservatism. Nothing like any of that. In fact, at the time of Thomas Aquinas, most of those constructs could not be imagined.

The prevailing, Church based system of feudal, monarchical order came about after the collapse of the Roman Empire. None of the order that those in the thirteenth century knew, the only order they knew, was part of the system employed by the Roman Empire prior to its collapse, either religious or secular.

So in three era's in which the Church has existed, the early, middle (Thomas Aquinas' time), and the modern, since the age of enlightenment, there has been a huge shift in the relative value of a human being within a society, related to governance, and religious belief.

My attempt to reference Thomas Jefferson was as an an enlightened mind, a product of the Age of Enlightenment, the dawn of our modern times, and as a Founding Father of our country. Simply stated, humans evolve. Regardless of Darwinian evolution, humans evolve in thought and being. What human 'being' is today is far superior to what it was in each preceding century back through the millennium.

Not as a judgement value place on thoughts and ideas, but in terms of general behavior. More and more of the citizens of countries on the face of the earth can expect some form of rule of law to intercede on their part, than ever.

At the time of Thomas, typical capital offenses included heresy, theft, fraud, etc. Some murder was punishable by death, but that application was spotty at best. Certain murder was sanctioned by the king and the Pope. Much of that would be considered genocide, or crimes against humanity today.

Now that we have set the stage, we move to Aquinas. He was a phenomenally monumental mind of his era, and had a major influence on the Church in his day. His influence still reaches us today. Probably one of the greatest writers in the history of Western Civilization, almost all of his work survives today because of the protection of the Church. Thomas was also a librarian, he maintained many of the works of other authors. In fact, scholars know quite a bit about what writers for many centuries, whether they were related to the Church, or not wrote, because of Thomas.

Thomas was a Dominican. The Dominicans of course were the tireless and enthusiastic enforcers of the Churches Inquisition against heretics, and other believers. My favorite example of which is the Albigensian Crusade, which was the largest, and bloodiest of all the crusades, and yet it never left Europe. We have discussed it before, when speaking about the wholesale murder of the Cathars by the crusaders under the command of the papal legate, Arnaud-Amaury, who voiced the "kill them all, and let God sort them out," philosophy first.

An interesting and somewhat ironic note about the Cathars, their preeminent heresy is that they believed in a clear dualism, between good and evil, with neither superior, more of the Manichean dialectic, as expressed in medieval Europe.

As far as the madness of Thomas, if that is what it was, (my characterization was an assertion of figurative madness) was due to understanding his life, times and works.

Thomas' principle work was his Summa Theologiae. Which was intended as a summary of Christian Theology. The first thing that a rational understanding of this effort should produce, is that this was a monumental undertaking for any one group, let alone an individual, no matter how many scribes, and assistants he had at his disposal. Secondly, his prominence, and incredible production, made him a perfect tool for those political powers in the medieval Church.

From 1268 to 1272 Thomas was assigned a position as regent master at the University of Paris, where he continued working on the Summa. He was probably brought to Paris in support of the Dominicans attack on several groups within the church that promoted works based the philosophical influence of Aristotle. Most of what was known of Aristotle, at that time was through Muslim philosophers and writers, and the Church was fearful of a 'begininglessness of the world,' [Aristotle's "On Coming-to-Be and Perishing 2.5–11" and "On the Soul 1.1–2"]

Then in 1273, after this intense action, in December a marked change took place :
On 6 December 1273, another mystical experience took place. While he was celebrating Mass, he experienced an unusually long ecstasy.[54] Because of what he saw, he abandoned his routine and refused to dictate to his socius Reginald of Piperno. When Reginald begged him to get back to work, Thomas replied: "Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me"[55] (mihi videtur ut palea).[56] As a result, the Summa Theologica would remain uncompleted. What exactly triggered Thomas's change in behavior is believed by Catholics to have been some kind of supernatural experience of God.[57] After taking to his bed, he did recover some strength.

Leaving this open for interpretation, a man who proceeded diligently, daily for most of his adult life, had an experience and threw his hands up, and worked no more. Ever.

Here is where our conversation gets dicey. Let's not engage in name-calling or any other form of abuse. What is one person's mystical experience, is another's mental breakdown. Or something different entirely. My job is to play skeptic, to make sure we are thinking, and applying rationality to all we discuss. Otherwise, why discuss it, or why think at all?

When the devil's advocate at his canonization process objected that there were no miracles, one of the cardinals answered, "Tot miraculis, quot articulis"—"there are as many miracles (in his life) as articles (in his Summa)".

This quote, shows prevailing sentiment against the established political power of the day. There was an alternative for the rumor of 'mysticism,' and 'miracles' could be unhealthy behavior. Just prior to the time of Thomas Aquinas, mortification of the flesh, became popular within circles of the Christian Church. This included whipping, mutilation to simulate Christ's wounds from being nailed to the cross, and even suspension, to simulate Christ hanging from the Cross. Sometimes this was achieved by lashing limbs and trunk, sometimes by suspension from a single rope fixed around the trunk, or even neck, and arm.

There are conflicting witness accounts, some vowing mystic and sublime assertion of the human conditions, and others claiming something far less noble. Being suspended, seemed to run a common theme for the remainder of his life, by witness accounts, however.

In 1054 the Great Schism had occurred between the Latin Church following the Pope (known as the Catholic Church) in the West, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the East (known as the Eastern Orthodox Church). Looking to find a way to reunite the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, Pope Gregory X convened the Second Council of Lyon to be held on 1 May 1274 and summoned Thomas to attend.[59] At the meeting, Thomas's work for Pope Urban IV concerning the Greeks, Contra errores graecorum, was to be presented.[60]

On the way to the Council, while riding along the Appian Way, he struck his head on a branch, and was reported to have become "seriously ill again."

After resting for a while, he set out again, but stopped at the Cistercian Fossanova Abbey after again falling ill.[61]The monks nursed him for several days, and as he received his last rites he prayed: "I receive Thee, ransom of my soul. For love of Thee have I studied and kept vigil, toiled, preached and taught...."[62] He died on 7 March 1274[61] while giving commentary on the Song of Songs.[63]

One interpretation of all of these events is that he was enraptured, and mystically promoted past the concerns of human flesh. Others, that he was consumed by the fact that his work was being used for and to advance specific political interests within the Church.

That is what I was referring to. If you choose to believe that God, or the Devil can intervene in our lives randomly, by suspending the rules of physics, and all natural laws, then I am a fool and an idiot. If you believe like Thomas Aquinas, and I do, that God does not simply interject himself in this corporeal world, here one minute gone the next, then you may look at this litany of events with compassionate and in a human light.

Aquinas' duality, which is the key point for this conversation, is not the duality of good and bad. Those that so believed were labeled as heretics in the Summa. And Aquinas further clearly argued they should be put to death, even if they repented. As he stated, the Church cannot protect 'heretics' lives, so kill them. But since only God can know what is truly in their hearts, he can bring them to heaven as he so wills.

Now we have come to a principle, still found in the Church, the whisper of which is still found in some posters arguments, that I most rail against!

I do not believe we have the right to judge others, or condemn them, based upon differences in our beliefs. And I do not believe we have any right to use principles based upon illogical, or observable forces to make life altering decisions affecting others lives.

If you want to convict a person in a court of law for murder, and the state sanctions murder as a legal penalty for murder, so be it. But if you want to murder someone because their beliefs contradict yours, (or even punish them or ostracize them in any way), that is immoral.

We are thinking beings, and none of us has to be so fearful that we need lash out violently at any different thought or idea, for our own self-preservation, or the preservation of our belief system. In fact, what makes us most noble as humans (what makes America great, coincidentally) is that we can accept, and evaluate different points of view, take what makes us all better, and let the rest pass.

The most liberal, and most conservative, the most secular, and the most religious, all have a problem with this concept. They 'know' they are 'right.' But after millions of deaths, and grievous ruination, humankind is becoming intelligent, in fits and starts, enough to realize this.

It all goes back to :

The Golden Rule.
12
* “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.i This is the law and the prophets.

This is Matthew 7:12. But lest we forget how good all of Matthew Chapter 7 is :

Judging Others.
1
* a “Stop judging,* that you may not be judged.b
2
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.c
3
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
4
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
5
You hypocrite,* remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

Pearls Before Swine.
6
“Do not give what is holy to dogs,* or throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot, and turn and tear you to pieces.d
The Answer to Prayers.
7
e “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.f
8
For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.g
9
Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread,*
10
or a snake when he asks for a fish?
11
If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.h
The Golden Rule.
12
* “Do to others whatever you would have them do to you.i This is the law and the prophets.
The Narrow Gate.
13
* “Enter through the narrow gate;* for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many.j
14
How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.
False Prophets.*
15
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.k
16
l By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
18
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
20
So by their fruits you will know them.m
The True Disciple.
21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,* but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.n
22
Many will say to me on that day,o ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’p
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you.* Depart from me, you evildoers.’q
The Two Foundations.
24
* “Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.r
25
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house.s But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26
And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27
The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”
28
* When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching,
29
* t for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

More on Aquinas later!

 

[Old Man Mike]

Tour de Force, Bogs.

Hope verse 6 doesn't get you.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

This particular swine doesn't want to lose the precious pearls offered by our forum demigods so let me offer my most humble token of gratitude for the above platitudes.

Also, thank you for explaining nuanced thinking. Due to my late conversion and half-hearted perusal through countless religious texts (and otherwise), I hadn't considered the idea that Rome may not be spotless.

You've clearly ascended in your metaphysical understanding of the world but my plebeian brain still can't get past the casual exchange of "mystical experience" for "going mad". Certainly, all men are free to interpret the world through their particular snowflake of a lens but it seems disingenuous to so casually pass that off as fact.

As to you conflating Aquinas' beliefs with your own:

If you choose to believe that God, or the Devil can intervene in our lives randomly, by suspending the rules of physics, and all natural laws, then I am a fool and an idiot. If you believe like Thomas Aquinas, and I do, that God does not simply interject himself in this corporeal world, here one minute gone the next, then you may look at this litany of events with compassionate and in a human light.

I believe you'll find your thinking much more in line with Hume than Aquinas.

Aquinas

In Summa Contra Gentiles III:101, St. Thomas Aquinas, expanding upon Augustine's conception, said that a miracle must go beyond the order usually observed in nature, though he insisted that a miracle is not contrary to nature in any absolute sense, since it is in the nature of all created things to be responsive to God's will.

Hume

In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume offered two definitions of "miracle;" first, as a violation of natural law (Enquiries p. 114); shortly afterward he offers a more complex definition when he says that a miracle is "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent"

Not that you should feel bad about having views that align with Hume. He's one of the most successful skeptics and his works are still being contended with, much like Aquinas.

 

[Old Man Mike]

FWIW: my "good ol' Catholic" view of Divine Interaction is that GOD indeed does choose to supersede the Laws of Natural Physics (which are after-all His own original Words of Creation), but does so subtly and sparingly so as not to absolutely prove Himself, and so to maintain the Freewill/Free Choice design of His Universe.

Despite having been a Science prof, I have no problem believing that God allows the occasional miracle --- a hypothesis that I believe best fits the observed data.

My applause for Bogs is the applause for an IE friend who shows the courage to stand up for his sense of reality and truth, works hard at doing it (i.e. truly brings something to the table), and who will, if given half a chance, do so civilly, and try to linearly stay on topic.

But David Hume is probably my most disliked philosopher, so I'm going with Aquinas every time.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Response - Part 1 - Respectful treatment or lack thereof.

Response - Part 1 - Respectful treatment or lack thereof.

I broke your post into three parts for my reply. Pardon my editing.

This particular swine doesn't want to lose the precious pearls offered by our forum demigods so let me offer my most humble token of gratitude for the above platitudes.

Also, thank you for explaining nuanced thinking. Due to my late conversion and half-hearted perusal through countless religious texts (and otherwise), I hadn't considered the idea that Rome may not be spotless.

You've clearly ascended in your metaphysical understanding of the world but my plebeian brain still can't get past the casual exchange of "mystical experience" for "going mad". Certainly, all men are free to interpret the world through their particular snowflake of a lens but it seems disingenuous to so casually pass that off as fact.

As to you conflating Aquinas' beliefs with your own:

If you choose to believe that God, or the Devil can intervene in our lives randomly, by suspending the rules of physics, and all natural laws, then I am a fool and an idiot. If you believe like Thomas Aquinas, and I do, that God does not simply interject himself in this corporeal world, here one minute gone the next, then you may look at this litany of events with compassionate and in a human light.

No one called you a swine. Instead you took ‘bait unintended,’ and replied with a passive aggressive comment to start your response. I had hoped for more.

The above ‘platitudes,’ as you call them, are from the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 7, the words of our own Jesus Christ. You see if there is something to be said for my perspective that is clear and clean, it is that His words are preeminent.

Again with the passive aggressive taunts aside, we have a real conundrum, don’t we? Many years after the fact the rumor began that supernatural occurrences happened, regarding the time in Aquinas’ life after he threw up his hands and gave up on the ‘Sum of Theology.’ The devil’s advocate clearly introduced a preponderance of evidence that showed that there had not been miraculous, or mystical events, instead there were rumors that had a darker interpretation of his actions in his final years. And all that was shouted down by the Canonical Cardinals.

Now, as for me conflating beliefs with beliefs. Do you have any understanding of what conflate means? Because, I believe I used a comma. I simply mentioned the fact that Aquinas did not believe that it was God's method of operation to simply interject himself into the daily workings of the world. And that can be born out by looking at a broad sample of Aquinas' writings. If fact, conflation is comparing supernatural interference in everyday life with miracles! Quoting two different writers definition of miracles, has nothing to do with that which I was speaking or comparing!

Especially if you ascribe to belief in the Devil. So, what I was talking about was supernatural interference in earthy matters, and I was talking specifically about God, but let's take it further, if you believe in the Devil as a supernatural being that interferes in our lives, if all interference is a miracle, does then the Devil perform miracles? If so, how then would we know which is which? Which are the good miracles, and which are the bad?

Snowflake? Seriously, Clark! Do you know what snowflake even means? Or are you using that term because it has become a popular insult to hurl among the more Neanderthal of us posting on this thread?

Because the whole idea of trying to look through a snowflake is really an incomplete analogy, as snowflakes are semi-opaque, and they tend to melt pretty fast, that close to the human eye. (Can’t you see me trying!)

But, rest assured there is quite a bit of irony in your choice of snowflake, I always thought it was kind of funny that because someone in the movies chose to use the term snowflake as something less than able to stand for itself, so people just began to throw it around like nothing. A ‘polite insult,’ so to speak; or, maybe not even a real insult, just a demeaning reference. Right?

Because, before that there were ‘Special Snowflakes,’ (produced by the ovens in the death camps) or SS. Schutzstaffel, what a delightful subject to contemplate, a time in world history where man became so indignant at others that held different believes, that he decided to try killing all of them who differed! Which takes us to Part Two – True Meaning found in Medieval Manuscripts. Stay tuned!

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I broke your post into three parts for my reply. Pardon my editing.


No one called you a swine. Instead you took ‘bait unintended,’ and replied with a passive aggressive comment to start your response. I had hoped for more.

The above ‘platitudes,’ as you call them, are from the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 7, the words of our own Jesus Christ. You see if there is something to be said for my perspective that is clear and clean, it is that His words are preeminent.

Again with the passive aggressive taunts aside, we have a real conundrum, don’t we? Many years after the fact the rumor began that supernatural occurrences happened, regarding the time in Aquinas’ life after he threw up his hands and gave up on the ‘Sum of Theology.’ The devil’s advocate clearly introduced a preponderance of evidence that showed that there had not been miraculous, or mystical events, instead there were rumors that had a darker interpretation of his actions in his final years. And all that was shouted down by the Canonical Cardinals.

Now, as for me conflating beliefs with beliefs. Do you have any understanding of what conflate means? Because, I believe I used a comma. I simply mentioned the fact that Aquinas did not believe that it was God's method of operation to simply interject himself into the daily workings of the world. And that can be born out by looking at a broad sample of Aquinas' writings. If fact, conflation is comparing supernatural interference in everyday life with miracles! Quoting two different writers definition of miracles, has nothing to do with that which I was speaking or comparing!

Especially if you ascribe to belief in the Devil. So, what I was talking about was supernatural interference in earthy matters, and I was talking specifically about God, but let's take it further, if you believe in the Devil as a supernatural being that interferes in our lives, if all interference is a miracle, does then the Devil perform miracles? If so, how then would we know which is which? Which are the good miracles, and which are the bad?

Snowflake? Seriously, Clark! Do you know what snowflake even means? Or are you using that term because it has become a popular insult to hurl among the more Neanderthal of us posting on this thread?

Because the whole idea of trying to look through a snowflake is really an incomplete analogy, as snowflakes are semi-opaque, and they tend to melt pretty fast, that close to the human eye. (Can’t you see me trying!)

But, rest assured there is quite a bit of irony in your choice of snowflake, I always thought it was kind of funny that because someone in the movies chose to use the term snowflake as something less than able to stand for itself, so people just began to throw it around like nothing. A ‘polite insult,’ so to speak; or, maybe not even a real insult, just a demeaning reference. Right?

Because, before that there were ‘Special Snowflakes,’ (produced by the ovens in the death camps) or SS. Schutzstaffel, what a delightful subject to contemplate, a time in world history where man became so indignant at others that held different believes, that he decided to try killing all of them who differed! Which takes us to Part Two – True Meaning found in Medieval Manuscripts. Stay tuned!

Bogs, my post wasn't intended as passive aggressive. It was meant to be read as overtly droll but I can see how it could've been taken the wrong way. I'll fix my style in future postings. I was plainly deriding much of what you posted because I don't agree with it. I also disagree with the stance that you and Aquinas share much in common thought.

Snowflake was actually a reference to "each person is like a snowflake, special because there are no two alike". The promotion of individual over community has led to a large number of issues and solved a few. But thanks for likening it to death camps and incinerators.

The platitudes was in reference to everything above Jesus' words but, again, smart move in trying to frame it as making fun of Jesus' words. It really undercut the rest of my post.

You said Aquinas didn't believe God intervened in our lives randomly, aka - miracles. I countered and said Aquinas did believe God performed miracles. Now I'm sure the goalpost will move to talk about how it isn't random or some other bullshit.

No one claimed all interference is a miracle so trying to classify Satan's interference in the world as miracle, is pointless. A rose by any other name and all of that. We're talking about supernatural interference in the natural world, doesn't matter what we call it. Aquinas believed it did occur. It had to occur if Jesus was anything besides a feel good hippy with a sad ending.

You don't believe it's true. Neither did Hume. Kewl. Sure seems like you have more in common with Hume than Aquinas on that specific point but I'm sure I'm wrong because...reasons.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

But David Hume is probably my most disliked philosopher, so I'm going with Aquinas every time.

I understand, the first time I read through an Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, I was livid. But ultimately, I respect his positions because they are very difficult for me to grapple with. Even today, if I read some of his works I find myself immediately gliding further into the skeptic side. (skeptic in the disbeliever sense)

I'd call myself 60/40 in favor of there being no God. I want there to be a God because my mind has a difficult time comprehending a universe/multiverse that came into being without cause. When there is pain, suffering or fear, I turn to the God I hope exists. The rest of the time I'm stuck with the mindset of Bertrand Russell, "why didn't you give us more evidence of your existence." ~paraphrasing

I still believe human life should be protected from conception to death (all life) but I doubt I could put forth a consistent philosophical system without God somewhere in the picture.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I'm 100/0 that God not only exists but is constantly involved with the maintenance and order of Creation. I'm at 100/0 despite having been a science prof. There has been nothing in science which has seriously disturbed this for me, and two of the greatest scientists of all time felt exactly that.

Isaac Newton felt that he was searching for the Words of God, and that was, in part, what the Law of Gravitation is. It was "spoken" at The Creation and through it the world is formed and maintains today. Newton and I both feel that we directly feel the maintaining power of God's Will every time we heft a stone.

John von Neumann found God easily. The entirety of the dominant scientific theory of his and our age rests on the collapsing of quantum wave functions, the collapse of which occurs most obviously by "observation." What collapsed the first great wave equation --- the indeterminate chaotic state from which came the Big Bang? What "observed"? WHO observed?

To "find" God one must give oneself some opportunities to look. There are lots of ways, but no easy Royal Road. I'm given the Gift of a day of returning to conscious connection with the Creation each morning. How? Seems like a gift of Love to me. Meditation on the weight of a stone or the colors coming through the crystals of the snow can approach the Mystic Communion. So can the Communion of The Eucharist. The Spiritual World exists, as anyone can be told just by asking friends and family to tell their paranormal experiences without sneers.

Just because my old profession sneers at things they can't get on their lab-benches doesn't mean that they don't exist. I have a brother who gets dramatic clairvoyant sights, another brother who lives in a well-witnessed poltergeist house, a family phantom rider experience, a grandmother who could "see around corners", and a great-grand aunt who saw the White Horse and Carriage whenever a family member died. I personally saw WAY out-of-place deer come to visit just after both my Father's and Mother's deaths, and a close friend's daughter had a lightform visit her after her only son's funeral (I've seen that video.)

It's all over our lives. Open up. Just don't expect to get hit in the face with thunder-proof, as if it were reductionist materials. Shut the noise in the brain down. Get patient and stay with it. God will come and "talk" with you.

There's so much of the healthy paranormal about that one wonders why academia gets so nervous about it and tries to obliterate it. My opinion: it's not that there is no God nor a realm of the Spiritual, but that they don't want there to be. Knowledge is often inconvenient. It might cause one to see that they have responsibilities to something beyond themselves. ... but I like it that way. It's good to have a very important Friend "in High Places."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Some types, although they don't want to go too far out of their way just to acquire love and wisdom, feel that all they have to is find out what The Magisterium says, and go with that. I used to think that this was a good route, but that was before I read deeply in Catholic history. And THAT is because "The Magisterium of the Church" (defined as it is as its leaders) has been so disastrously wrong-headed so many times in the past that future Magisteria have had to utterly reverse some of their opinions. I therefore am cooled off a bit when an alleged authoritarian pronouncement comes down. (For the rightwing, "orthodox" Catholics out there, you should keep in mind that Francis is head honcho of The Magisterium currently, and you don't like his style.) But it's good and honest to listen to one's leaders, so I read, meditate, pray, listen to The Holy Spirit, and try to live my life according to the Beatitudes --- without name-calling my Catholic brethren heretics and hypocrites and candidates for the stake, particularly without knowing how they've come to the positions that they hold.

I don't disagree, OMM, but when I look at the current state of the West, I don't think that we're suffering from an overabundance of moral authority. Quite the opposite, in fact. And I don't use the label "heretic" lightly, but I have little patience for Catholic priests who scandalize the faithful by contradicting foundational doctrines like the reliability of Scripture. They're held to a higher standard of orthodoxy by nature of their office.

I don't know how you explain that. Perhaps flawed understanding of just *what* the individual had actually been exposed to previously? I believe that these mental issues manifest themselves from a subconscious place that evolved from previous exposure to religion or belief. It seems natural that an individual, particularly a child or young adult with a still-rapidly developing brain might have retained, subconsciously, bits and pieces of Latin here, some Italian there. Suddenly, when that mental "break" occurs that people believe to be possession, and that person is shouting phrases in a language that "they've never been exposed to," there is no explanation.

I call bullshit on all of these people having never been exposed to Latin or Spanish or other foreign languages. If they go to church, or are from Latin America, or any area of Western Europe, they've been exposed to every language, and in decent amounts.

That might be possible for Latin (though I seriously doubt most modern Americans could string together anything but gibberish given their level of exposure to ancient languages)... but what about Aramaic? I humbly submit, as OMM has described in his past few posts, that the evidence of demonic possession cannot be so easily dismissed as manifestations of the subconscious.

An Atheist that lives a long and just life, knowing of God but refusing to believe, is probably safer in the event that there IS a Heaven, than a devout Catholic that beats his children and ignores the poor guy on the street corner every time he goes to the bar.

Maybe. But presuming upon God's mercy is just as harmful as despairing of it entirely. If you believe something exists beyond the material world, it would be wise to learn as much as possible about it.

I assume you are either stating (wrongly) that I have stated what you have listed as unequivocal fact and unqualified opinions. If not, that these are both for 'modern secular liberals.'

Bogs, I listed those three things because I distinctly recall you making those arguments here in the past. Which is fine, as far as it goes. As I mentioned previously, I don't find the Form Critics to be persuasive, because polemicists make bad historians. They're certainly not unique in being conveniently blind to the power of motivated reasoning, though it doesn't help their claim to be coming at the texts objectively.

It's pretty clear that we have deep disagreements over the nature of authority and the Cosmos itself, so I'm not sure if engaging over this topic further will be productive.

"Jesus had brothers and sisters; -" I may have said in posting and have said, the New Testament specifically refers to Jesus as having siblings, because that is a 'fact,' it does. I may have also offered an opinion about anyone who would even refuse to discuss the idea, when they consider the body of works the divine, inspired word of God.

The Greek adelphos does not simply mean "a male sibling with whom one shares a biological parent", but also applies to cousins, and even "spiritual" brothers. So those passages do not conflict at all with the dogma that Jesus was an only child, and Mary ever Virgin.

"Mary Magdalene was an apostle, which was immediately covered up by misogynistic Christian patriarchs; -" I have never been one to believe in Dan Brown, nor have I been one to believe in the last man standing thesis of the obvious shift shown in Church orthodoxy. Magdalene wasn't a prostitute, and was most probably a relatively wealthy woman who may in fact have contributed financially to Jesus, and his Apostles. Everybody has to distinguish between the words Apostle and Disciple. I have said I believe her to be a disciple of Jesus.

No one disputes that she was a disciple of Jesus; she's a canonized saint, after all. But you last brought her up in regards to whether women can be ordained as priests, which means you think she was much more that. This again touches on my point about politically motivated exegesis, but I'll leave that aside.

Simply stated, humans evolve. Regardless of Darwinian evolution, humans evolve in thought and being. What human 'being' is today is far superior to what it was in each preceding century back through the millennium.

We can build on what has come before (could go on a long tangent here about the value of tradition, but I'll spare you), but we have not evolved as you seem to be asserting. The human brain has not changed significantly since our species appeared roughly 200,000 years ago. The idea that modern humans are categorically superior to our ancestors is of course a common liberal conceit, but I don't see much evidence for it. Everything that's good about liberalism is directly traceable to Christianity, and since your Enlightenment heroes decided to start marginalizing the Church, the social fabric has been steadily unraveling.

At the time of Thomas, typical capital offenses included heresy, theft, fraud, etc. Some murder was punishable by death, but that application was spotty at best. Certain murder was sanctioned by the king and the Pope. Much of that would be considered genocide, or crimes against humanity today.

Lets not forget those nasty Christians burning down the Library of Alexandria, the Progressive martyrs Hypatia and Giordano Bruno, and all the other psuedo-historic slanders against the Church! It's true that religion and politics were often inextricably linked in the Middle Ages, but we're not any more civilized now that we pretend religion is a strictly private affair. If anything, it's allowed our civil authorities to kill much more mercilessly, since they can now pretend to be operating on a more "enlightened" plane.

Most of what was known of Aristotle, at that time was through Muslim philosophers and writers, and the Church was fearful of a 'begininglessness of the world,' [Aristotle's "On Coming-to-Be and Perishing 2.5–11" and "On the Soul 1.1–2"]

The importance of Arabic translations of the Greek classics is commonly over-stated. By Aquinas' time, those translations had been largely replaced by transcripts preserved in the original Greek received via Byzantium and Benedictine monasteries.

I do not believe we have the right to judge others, or condemn them, based upon differences in our beliefs. And I do not believe we have any right to use principles based upon illogical, or observable forces to make life altering decisions affecting others lives.

If you want to convict a person in a court of law for murder, and the state sanctions murder as a legal penalty for murder, so be it. But if you want to murder someone because their beliefs contradict yours, (or even punish them or ostracize them in any way), that is immoral.

We are thinking beings, and none of us has to be so fearful that we need lash out violently at any different thought or idea, for our own self-preservation, or the preservation of our belief system. In fact, what makes us most noble as humans (what makes America great, coincidentally) is that we can accept, and evaluate different points of view, take what makes us all better, and let the rest pass.

This is bog standard liberalism that could have been taken directly from Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration, which maintains its hegemony over the Western mind by tidily sorting "beliefs" from "facts", and then declaring that only the latter are allowed any import within the public square. The problem with that is this: law is nothing but codified moral standards. The idea of law itself is a moral one.

And there are such things as dangerous ideas. We can quibble about how extreme a just response would be, but any Western authority that feels it cannot suppress the spread of radical Salafism within its jurisdiction due to some abstract concept of liberty is remiss in its duty toward its citizens, and deserves to be overthrown.

The most liberal, and most conservative, the most secular, and the most religious, all have a problem with this concept. They 'know' they are 'right.' But after millions of deaths, and grievous ruination, humankind is becoming intelligent, in fits and starts, enough to realize this.

Thank goodness we ditched the moral clarity of the Ancients and the Medievals! But the Enlightenment started in the late 17th century, and global death tolls have risen geometrically in every century since then... Am I missing something? Or perhaps humanity has just recently come to realize that a benign moral relativism is the key to everlasting peace and prosperity?

This is Matthew 7:12.

The Golden Rule isn't sufficient, Bogs. Jesus' full comment on this subject is important:

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Without first resolving what one owes to God, one cannot properly love himself, or his neighbor. Just as Jefferson's quip about what "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" isn't a sufficient basis for designing a government.

Regarding the justice each man and city owes to God, I accept the authority of the Catholic Church and the witness of the saints over the last 2,000 years. And the Magisterium is pretty clear that God doesn't call anyone to be a bougie liberal.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Here are two recently published articles which are relevant to the subject which kicked off this recent exchange. The first is by Chad Pecknold, a theology professor at Catholic University, titled "Suppressing Jesuits, Suppressing Jesus: Fr. Sosa's Surprising Words on Christ's Own Words":

In 1773 the Society of Jesus was suppressed. While Jesuits were not without theological critics – Jansenists, Dominicans, and Franciscans – their suppression was not theological but political. As nation-states were forming throughout Europe and the Americas, many monarchs saw the Jesuits not simply as priests attending to the propagation of the Church’s faith, but as political and economic actors with more “global” concerns. Justified or not, in many parts of the world, monarchs accused Jesuits of “inciting the mobs.”

The story is incredibly complicated. It includes difficult land and trade disputes in many parts of the world. Nation-state expansion, as well as the secularizing sentiments of the enlightenment, contributed to the suppression of the Society. Some of the history exonerates Jesuits, some does not.

But the point is that when Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society through his papal bull Dominus ac Redemptor Noster on July 21, 1773 he was doing so not for theological reasons but for the common good and peace of political order, which serves the peace of the Church. Pope Clement decreed, “we do…suppress and abolish the said company: we deprive it of all activity.” During the suppression and after, Jesuits fled to Protestant and Orthodox nations (Russia) and waited out their suppression through the Napoleonic wars. After the Restoration in 1815, Jesuits were successively re-established throughout the nations. It was a traumatic half-century for the Jesuits during a tumultuous period of geo-political transformation.

This history of the Jesuit’s controversial political and economic influence within early modern political communities came flooding back to me as I read a recent interview with the newly elected Superior General, Father Arturo Sosa, S.J. Trained in political science in Venezuela, Fr. Sosa cuts the perfect image of the modern Jesuit priest who often takes off his collar to be “close to the people,” and puts it back on whenever he takes command of the missions of the Society, as rector of a house of formation, leading social justice centers, or in his prominent appointments in Rome. As the new “black pope,” (the traditional nickname given to the superior general of the Society of Jesus due to his all black vestments) he has taken full command of the Society of Jesus, and in his latest interview demonstrates how that command touches the universal church.

In response to a question about Cardinal Mueller’s statement that “no power in heaven and on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, neither a council nor a law of the bishops has the power to change” the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce, the newly appointed black pope dryly responded that “no one had a recorder.” Sosa says that we must reinterpret his “words” in context, but the clear implication is that they needn’t mean what the Church has always and everywhere understood their meaning. This reflects a profound skepticism about Holy Scripture, thinly veiled by the stated need to “contextualize” the words of Jesus.

When pressed on the implied relativism, Fr. Sosa replied “that is not relativism, but attests that the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, that it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons.” This seems an extraordinarily horizontal and sociological view of the authority of the Holy Bible, and the authority of Christ’s words, which, in his view, are simply words “relative” to a particular time and place different than our own. The clear implication is that the same words can mean something completely different, relative to our own time and place.

The interviewer sees the trouble, and asks him directly whether he has put the very words of Jesus into doubt. To this Sosa replies that he does not bring the word of Jesus into doubt “but the word of Jesus as we have interpreted it.” The Superior General drives a sharp wedge between the significance of Jesus’ words, and the Church’s understanding and magisterial teaching on them. In this sense, he seems to separate Christ’s head from his body.

The question of authority naturally follows. If the Church’s understanding of the very words of Jesus is “relative” then who decides the proper and true understanding of his words? To this, Sosa replies simply “The Church has always reiterated the priority of personal conscience.”

The interview details the same logic with doctrine. Sosa says he doesn’t like the word doctrine, which he thinks of as “rock-hard,” something unchangeable, when in fact he sees the Church’s teaching as something softly nuanced, like a body.

It’s amazing how the imaginative power that enriches the Spiritual Exercises can be used to construct equally powerful images capable of undermining the very faith that inspired St. Ignatius of Loyola’s saintly work. But here is the irony presently facing us. Images can be used well or badly. Here the images all work to evoke a sympathetic humanism but in fact undermine the true humanism which has been revealed to us in holy scripture and sacred tradition.

The black popes’ skepticism about the Church’s ability to have a definitive and clear understanding of the words of the Incarnate Word of God in Jesus Christ makes both scripture and doctrine a plaything of desire.

As St. Augustine taught long ago, a great variety of interpretations are fine so long as they fit with the established doctrine of the Church and do not contradict the deposit of the Faith. It is ironic, and troubling, that the leader of the Society of Jesus, which was formed to convert Protestants, appears to be asserting something like a Protestant view of the relation between Scripture and Tradition, and the Magisterium dedicated to safeguarding the Deposit of the Faith.

The Society of Jesus has served the common good of the Church well throughout her history. At times Jesuits have been unjustly accused, suppressed, maligned, and martyred. They now wield an incredible power, not so much within nations but within the Catholic Church. This is true of the successor of St. Peter wearing white as it is of the successor of St. Ignatius wearing black. But just as darkness is only a deprivation of light, I’m afraid that the words of this “black pope” in this interview bring little light, and potential destruction to the deposit of faith entrusted to the apostles. At best, Sosa gives us a gray Catholicism which can survive, and limp along by grace. At worst, his historicist relativizing of scripture and doctrine is a sign that will never illuminate, never enliven, never be counted as true reform.

Jesuits have an enormous political power within the Church. With a Superior General who stands on such shaky theological ground, the faithful should pray for the Jesuits, not that they should be suppressed, but that they would not cut off the branch upon which their whole society rests.

And the second is by Fr. Thomas Petri, OP, titled "It isn't just Fr. Sosa: some scholars have been undermining the Gospel for decades":

St. Jerome, one of the great Doctors of the Church and the patron saint of Biblical scholars, famously said that “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Yet in a recent interview, the current Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Fr Arturo Sosa SJ, asserted that Jesus’ words, as recorded in the Gospels, are not necessarily what He meant to say. If Fr Sosa is right, then it appears that the Scriptures are not a trustworthy source to know Jesus Christ.

Responding to Cardinal Müller’s earlier interview in which he noted that the Lord’s prohibition against divorce in Matthew 19 is absolute and cannot be changed, Fr Sosa ostensibly agreed: “No one can change the word of Jesus.” However, he’s certain that “there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down His words.” He goes on to enthuse: “Over the last century in the Church, there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand what Jesus meant to say.”

I certainly wouldn’t say such studies have “blossomed” in the Church. They have produced little but confusion.

Sosa is referring to a certain strand of historical-critical scholarship of the Scriptures that began in academic circles sometime during the Enlightenment and reached its peak of influence in the mid-20th century. It subjects the Bible to a purely historical interpretation, which separates the texts from their lived context in the Church and subjects them to a quasi-scientific method. Using literary criticism, historical and archeological studies, and sociocultural anthropology, these scholars attempt to identify an historical Jesus that existed prior to the articulated beliefs and trappings that the Church supposedly devised about Him.

Presuming they are operating in a scientific manner, these historical-critical scholars have assumed for themselves an authority to determine not only what Jesus actually said prior to the elaborate written narratives of the Gospels but also what he must have meant. Not surprisingly, since this method has its origins in the anti-institutional and anti-dogmatic milieu of the Enlightenment, these scholars’ conclusions about the historical Jesus often contradict or correct those most challenging doctrines and dogmas of Church.

The nadir of these biblical studies came in the United States in the mid-1980s with the establishment of the Jesus Seminar by Robert Funk. Until the mid-1990s, the Seminar regularly gathered a group of approximately 150 scholars to determine collectively what were most likely the authentic sayings and deeds of the historical Jesus around which the Gospel narratives were written. In 1993, without any sense of irony, the scholars of the Seminar collectively voted on the sayings of Jesus to determine which ones were likely authentic and which ones were only somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or unlikely authentic. In the end, the scholars collectively concluded that only eleven sayings of Jesus reported in the Gospels were likely authentic. Not surprisingly, all eleven of them are those teachings that secular liberalism espouses without qualm (eg concern for the poor, loving enemies, and turning the other cheek).

If Fr Sosa and scholars like those of the Jesus Seminar are right, and we really cannot accept what the Gospels report as authentically communicating the words and meaning of Jesus Christ, then what we are left with is far worse than a Protestant sola Scriptura view of the Bible. Contrary to 2 Timothy 3:16, the Scriptures would no longer be suitable for teaching: their meaning could not be known, even by the Church, without explicit scholarly analysis. Far from opening the Word of God to the faithful, such a view manifests an elitism often associated with the clericalism of the Middle Ages.

Fortunately, despite what Fr Sosa asserts and seems to believe, the Church has neither ever endorsed nor ever supported this approach to interpreting the Scriptures. The historical-critical movement was already waning in its influence at the advent of the Second Vatican Council. In its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), the Council declared that in Jesus Christ the “full revelation of the Supreme God is brought to completion.” Moreover, the apostles faithfully handed on what they themselves had received “from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit.” The commission to pass on the saving truth of Jesus was further fulfilled “by those apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.”

The Council went on to declare that the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition form a single deposit of faith that allows the faithful, under the guidance of the shepherds of the Church, to remain steadfast in the teachings of the Apostles in a common heritage of the faith. “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God but serves it.”And the teaching office of the Church has been unanimous from the beginning that Christ’s prohibition of divorce and remarriage is absolute. The specific purpose of the magisterium, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, is in fact “to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (890).

Joseph Ratzinger’s theology has engaged profoundly with historical questions. But much of his work stands in opposition to the ideas espoused by Fr Sosa in this interview, and those of the studies Fr Sosa supports. Ratzinger once argued: “The crisis of faith in Christ in recent times began with a modified way of reading Sacred Scripture – seemingly the sole scientific way.” The Scriptures, however, arose within the communion of the Church – the ecclesial community formed by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. It is only within the Church that the Word of God is living and is more than merely an ancient text subject to scholarly study and dispute.

When he took possession of the cathedra of Rome at St. John Lateran in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI lamented, “Whenever Sacred Scripture is separated from the living voice of the Church, it falls prey to disputes among experts.” These experts cannot offer a definitive interpretation of the Scripture – a certain interpretation “with which we can live and for which we can even die. A greater mandate is necessary for this, which cannot derive from human abilities alone. The voice of the living Church is essential for this, of the Church entrusted until the end of time to Peter and the College of the Apostles.” When the Sacred Scriptures are detached from the living voice of the Church, Ratzinger once observed, “the result is an often highly fanciful allegorical interpretation, which turns out to be a means of self-affirmation for the interpreter.” If one attempts to study Scripture apart from the faith of the Church, we should not be surprised that conclusions are reached which affirm one’s own proclivities rather than the doctrines of the magisterium.

And this is perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of Fr Sosa’s interview. The perennial teaching of the Church including that of Vatican II, holds that not only is Christ the source of saving moral truth, but also that the Holy Spirit inspired and guided the preaching of the apostles, the writing of the Scriptures, the formation of the canon of the Bible, and the ongoing interpretation of the Word by the authentic teaching office of the Church. We can have confidence that the Gospels communicate what Christ said, and, with the Church, we know what He meant. Fr Sosa, on the other hand, seems to assert that none of this is absolute because “the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons.”

The only thing, seemingly, that can be trusted according to Fr Sosa is one’s own discernment which, he says, “listens to the Holy Spirit, who – as Jesus has promised – helps us to understand the signs of God’s presence in human history.” While he admits that true discernment cannot replace doctrine, he nonetheless believes it can come to conclusions that are different from doctrine. And this is so because, in his words, “doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit.”

It’s not clear how to make sense of this apparent contradiction, or how this is anything other than a relativism that despairs at the teaching of Christ definitively known and interpreted by the magisterium of the Church. Indeed, Fr Sosa himself says: “Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.” Standing opposed to such despair is the entirety of the New Testament and the lives of countless saints including St Ignatius of Loyola. They all testify that the life of faith is an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ but not an amorphous one. No, the life of faith takes a definite form of both knowledge about God and a specific way of living, all of which is communicated through the Church, the body of Christ.

Far from being stone tablets, the definite teachings of the new covenant in Christ are written on the heart, enlighten the mind, and are lived in grace. The children of God thus stand neither ignorant of God’s will nor oppressed by it but rather are liberated to live it. This is because, in the words of St Peter, “his divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these [we] may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature”(2 Peter 1:3-4).

The ideas put forth in Fr Sosa’s interview not only engender doubt and despair about the Gospels and the Church, but also about the promises of God, who calls us to union with Him, and who has given us all that is necessary to live life with Him and for Him.

 

[wizards8507]

Sitting in the parking lot waiting for Mass traffic to clear. Can anyone explain to me how the practice of getting ashes on our foreheads isn't in direct contradiction of today's Gospel reading? Aren't we being like the hypocrites by walking around with an outward sign of our fasting and piety on our faces?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Sitting in the parking lot waiting for Mass traffic to clear. Can anyone explain to me how the practice of getting ashes on our foreheads isn't in direct contradiction of today's Gospel reading? Aren't we being like the hypocrites by walking around with an outward sign of our fasting and piety on our faces?

It depends on the circumstances. If you live in a heavily Catholic community, get your ashes before work, and wear them all day as a form of virtue signaling, then yes, you're probably running afoul of today's Gospel. But in most other environments, it can be a subtle statement of faith. The important thing is that you received your memento mori today, and should now be properly oriented towards the fasting and purification of Lent. How long you wear it afterwards depends on who you're likely to run into and what their reaction to it is likely to be.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Whether you're a hypocrite or not depends solely on what's honestly in your soul as you receive those ashes and (HUMBLY hopefully) walk out of Church into the World. Too many people forget that human life is an interaction between oneself and GOD. What's that interaction like? Healthy? Grace-full? Love-creating? There's not some sociologically absolute "law" that states that you're sinful because you have ashes on your head. I am constantly stunned that people want a full book of sins and non-sins to run their lives on, taking away the DESIGNED-by-GOD freedom of Will that they have been given to turn into a little book robot. Civil law has never been able to write such a book for proper citizen rights/responsibilities which covers all nuances (why we have courts and lawyers), and The Church certainly cannot produce such a book for spiritual decisions either. There are reasons why we should regularly pray and meditate upon the complexities of Life. The answers aren't "simply" in a giant Catechism.

 

[johnnycando]

Pray for these people.

Exorcists warn against Wiccan spell to bind Donald Trump :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

 

[Old Man Mike]

I agree that anyone or any group who desires to take away a person's freedom-of-choice-will-power contradicts the Design of Creation required by GOD, but my study of so-called "Wiccans" tells me that this is one of our least worries. These people are largely an off-shoot of middle-class white America New-Age-ism, and spend most of their time fantasizing about communing with nature and creating "harmony." They'd be almost harmless if it weren't for the fact that these Rituals-of-Love appear to blind them to the awareness that they need to get further beyond their own selves than that, and therefore significantly closer to a Divine Vision that requires a lot more non-self-centered behavior than Wicca gatherings produce.

Again, actual "covens" in the Hollywood sense, are rare in the USA, according to researchers who have infiltrated them to study their attitudes, actions, and psychology ... and they don't practice Black Arts like the old Golden Dawn of Aleister Crowley and his circle of morons. (There is, with one exception, not a glimmer that Crowley's group or any distant associates ever accomplished anything except setting up one another for sex, by the way. That one exception is Jack Parsons of the Cal Tech Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who killed himself in a mysterious desert explosion, seemingly attempting to bring forth a Moonchild daemon. No one can honestly say whether his death had anything to do with the "ritual" part of that.)

Bottomline: yes, pray for them. They're lost sheep in a forest composed of dead ends. But no need to sweat them being able to make Donald Trump "kinder." ... for a lot of reasons.

 

[wizards8507]

Uh...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/f...-controller-at-vatican-workshop-for-urging-us

 

[Old Man Mike]

??? what's the issue? The environmentalists quoted have been endorsing that position for decades. I see no material in this article which states any changes of position by The Church on birth control methodology (although I personally would welcome it), so where's the angst? My parents desperately tried to limit family size (my Mom was over 39 years old for our last three kids --- relate that to "morality and choices") and used "rhythm" without success. The idea of trying to have less kids was not viewed as evil, despite what some catholics might be trying to accuse them of.

 

[wizards8507]

??? what's the issue? The environmentalists quoted have been endorsing that position for decades. I see no material in this article which states any changes of position by The Church on birth control methodology (although I personally would welcome it), so where's the angst? My parents desperately tried to limit family size (my Mom was over 39 years old for our last three kids --- relate that to "morality and choices") and used "rhythm" without success. The idea of trying to have less kids was not viewed as evil, despite what some catholics might be trying to accuse them of.

If he's speaking on his own, fine. If he's speaking as a surrogate for Francis, it's a major departure from the established theology of the body.

Also, your conception of natural family planning is outdated. My wife and I know her fertile periods with absolute certainty.

 

[Old Man Mike]

So, you're fine with family planning in Catholicism (which is equivalent to limiting family size)? Great. We agree.

 

[wizards8507]

Hey Whiskeyjack, do you know anything about The Third Secret of Fatima conspiracy? Don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole if it's nothing but bunk.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Hey Whiskeyjack, do you know anything about The Third Secret of Fatima conspiracy? Don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole if it's nothing but bunk.

It's bunk.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

It's bunk.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

This guy is pretty fire.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IjtFEqVCJvs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[zelezo vlk]

Take it from Father Benny himself. https://cruxnow.com/church/2016/05/21/pope-benedict-denies-theres-more-to-third-secret-of-fatima/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

My wife is out of town helping her mother through a hip surgery. How do I spend my weekend? Not pizza and video games. PB&J and anti-Francis YouTube lectures from a traditionalist Catholic conference.

 

[greyhammer90]

My wife is out of town helping her mother through a hip surgery. How do I spend my weekend? Not pizza and video games. PB&J and anti-Francis YouTube lectures from a traditionalist Catholic conference.

/r/iamverysmart material right here.