Hey Fellow Theology Students/graduates....help Please!

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1275954394' post='2125418']
As have I, and it is obvious that he is ignorant of Catholic theology. Nevertheless, he is intelligent insofar as the Protestantized, check-your-brain-at-the-door approach to the Bible sounds nonsensical to him; he is scandalized. Almost every atheist I've ever known (and I've known many), if they came from a Christian background, came from an Evangelical background where the Bible is literally inerrant in every way and problem-free. When it dawns on them that if the Bible were truly problem-free then it wouldn't take volumes of text to explain "difficult passages", they leave the faith because they thought it hinged on a perfect text.[/quote]

And I've known plenty of atheists who left the Catholic Church because they disagreed with transubstantiation. They felt that their faith hinged on believing that bread is changed into the body of Christ at Mass. Does the fact that these Catholics became atheists due to their struggles with transubstantiation make the doctrine of transubstantiation false?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 June 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1275956206' post='2125428']
And I've known plenty of atheists who left the Catholic Church because they disagreed with transubstantiation. They felt that their faith hinged on believing that bread is changed into the body of Christ at Mass. Does the fact that these Catholics became atheists due to their struggles with transubstantiation make the doctrine of transubstantiation false?
[/quote]

The difference is that the Bible is not textually perfect, while there is no contradiction or logical absurdity found in Eucharistic doctrine. The teaching on the Eucharist is that what you see is not what you get. Those who espouse a textually perfect Bible say that what you see is what you get, and what you see and get is perfection, and if you don't see perfection you need to get your eyes checked. Riiiiiight.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1275957315' post='2125433']
The difference is that the Bible is not textually perfect, while there is no contradiction or logical absurdity found in Eucharistic doctrine. The teaching on the Eucharist is that what you see is not what you get. Those who espouse a textually perfect Bible say that what you see is what you get, and what you see and get is perfection, and if you don't see perfection you need to get your eyes checked. Riiiiiight.
[/quote]

The doctrine of transubstantiation is completely true, but not because you say it is reasonable and logical. Transubstantiation is true because God revealed it, regardless of whether you, with your subjective and fallible reasoning, find it logical or not. Although you (again, with your limited and fallible intellect) find the doctrine of the absence of error in Scripture absurd, it, too, is completely true. You would do well to learn from the Fathers of the Church:

'The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: "On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honour and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."' (Pope Leo XIII, [i]Providentissimus Deus[/i], 21)

[CatherineM]

Theology can be a very complex, confusing subject. The reason it is best studied in an academic setting is that it requires learned instruction and direction. Just memorizing verses of this, or sentences out of 100 year old encyclicals can't teach you to think like a theologian any more than memorizing a law book can teach you to think like a lawyer.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='07 June 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1275959027' post='2125451']
Theology can be a very complex, confusing subject. The reason it is best studied in an academic setting is that it requires learned instruction and direction. Just memorizing verses of this, or sentences out of 100 year old encyclicals can't teach you to think like a theologian any more than memorizing a law book can teach you to think like a lawyer.
[/quote]

I am sure that both St. Augustine and Pope Leo XIII were much greater theologians than either you or I will ever be.

[bmb144]

Um...wow *reads thread more...um um....

Hmmm..you know what, I suddenly feel better about all of this by reading the to and fro of this thread. I've pinned down an appointment with a possible SD in early July. Once my final exam is over I'll go see my confessor and see if I can shift myself to his parish. I also ordered the faith and reason encyclical this morning.
Above all the words I got back from Rev Mother Cyril gave me the final answer I needed. I Tyburn nuns!

Anyone know of a good book or two on church history from a Catholic perspective?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 June 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1275960632' post='2125458']
I am sure that both St. Augustine and Pope Leo XIII were much greater theologians than either you or I will ever be.
[/quote]
That's something that we can actually agree on. Although, I don't consider myself to be a theologian, and never will be. That's not really what I am training for. I'm training to be a better catechist, and eventually to hopefully start and run a program here for Catholic annulment mediation.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='07 June 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1275954394' post='2125418']
As have I, and it is obvious that he is ignorant of Catholic theology. Nevertheless, he is intelligent insofar as the Protestantized, check-your-brain-at-the-door approach to the Bible sounds nonsensical to him; he is scandalized. Almost every atheist I've ever known (and I've known many), if they came from a Christian background, came from an Evangelical background where the Bible is literally inerrant in every way and problem-free. When it dawns on them that if the Bible were truly problem-free then it wouldn't take volumes of text to explain "difficult passages", they leave the faith because they thought it hinged on a perfect text.

Please take a stab at the problem-free passage of Mark that I mentioned earlier.
[/quote]

A literal understanding of the Bible is not solely based on the Scriptures as free from any and all inaccuracies; it is also based on a rejection of a metaphoric and/or allegorical understanding of the Bible. (I always find the literal interpretation ironic because the Last Supper is never included in that.) Rex is not arguing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, he is arguing that the Bible is free of inaccuracies.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='07 June 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1275958355' post='2125445']
The doctrine of transubstantiation is completely true, but not because you say it is reasonable and logical.
[/quote]

No kidding. God gave us brains for a reason, you know. A God who is Truth does not ask his followers to believe in contradictions. Transubstantiation is consistent with the facts. A textually perfect Bible is not consistent with the facts. If a religion claims that apes are kittens and kittens are apes, the religion is not true. Our Bible is inerrant. But not in the way that you claim. And claiming that it is textually perfect is a scandal to the thinking world.

What silliness. Go ahead and address the actual issues that I have raised, please. You know, the ones you have been so effortlessly dodging.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='07 June 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1275961624' post='2125466']
A literal understanding of the Bible is not solely based on the Scriptures as free from any and all inaccuracies; it is also based on a rejection of a metaphoric and/or allegorical understanding of the Bible. (I always find the literal interpretation ironic because the Last Supper is never included in that.) Rex is not arguing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, he is arguing that the Bible is free of inaccuracies.
[/quote]

Rex is arguing that the Scriptures are textually perfect in everything they assert. I argue that the Scriptures are, in the original manuscripts, textually perfect only in those things pertaining to salvation (i.e., what the Church asserts). Many tidbits in the Bible are obviously divinely inspired fiction (every word was written under divine inspiration; that is not the same as saying that God dictated the text, reducing the writers to human pens) and not actually historical. Judith and Jonah for instance. Probably Job and Tobit. There are also other inconsistencies, such as the one I mentioned in Mark. I also see absolutely no reason to say that the apparent scientific errors are merely phenomenological reflections on the way the world worlds. Absurd; phenomenology was practically what the writers were reduced to at the time - they thought that's how things really were! In other words, the writers made errors. Why do you think the Church was so concerned with heliocentrism? Because it implies that the views of certain biblical writers were in error. The gradual writing of the Scriptures reflects a gradually developing awareness of God's revelation (indeed, God's revelation was itself gradual). The writings were textually imperfect and human, albeit written under the active inspiration of Almighty God, who safeguarded the accuracy of those things pertaining to our salvation.

[CatherineM]

I don't find it difficult to believe that if Jesus could "make up" people such as the Good Samaritan to teach us a lesson, that God, through the Holy Spirit could do the same for Jonah.

[kafka]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='07 June 2010 - 09:03 PM' timestamp='1275959027' post='2125451']
Theology can be a very complex, confusing subject. The reason it is best studied in an academic setting is that it requires learned instruction and direction. Just memorizing verses of this, or sentences out of 100 year old encyclicals can't teach you to think like a theologian any more than memorizing a law book can teach you to think like a lawyer.
[/quote]
In a sense I agree and understand what you are saying.

Yet Divine Revelation is open to everyone regardless of academic background, if that person approaches God with divine faith and reason. The truths revealed by God are open and accessable to reason yet transcend reason.

And what if the academic setting has gone astray?

[quote name='In His Light' date='07 June 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1275960964' post='2125460']
Um...wow *reads thread more...um um....

Hmmm..you know what, I suddenly feel better about all of this by reading the to and fro of this thread. I've pinned down an appointment with a possible SD in early July. Once my final exam is over I'll go see my confessor and see if I can shift myself to his parish. I also ordered the faith and reason encyclical this morning.
Above all the words I got back from Rev Mother Cyril gave me the final answer I needed. I Tyburn nuns!

Anyone know of a good book or two on church history from a Catholic perspective?
[/quote]
Fides et Ratio is an excellent encyclical.

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='07 June 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1275961624' post='2125466']
A literal understanding of the Bible is not solely based on the Scriptures as free from any and all inaccuracies; it is also based on a rejection of a metaphoric and/or allegorical understanding of the Bible. (I always find the literal interpretation ironic because the Last Supper is never included in that.) Rex is not arguing that the earth is only 6,000 years old, he is arguing that the Bible is free of inaccuracies.
[/quote]
you get a plus 1 when my quota returns.

Here is Conte's commentary on n. 38 of Pope Pius XII's Divino Afflantu Spiritu. He is basically re-iterating what Pius XII teaches in his own words:

"The faithful commentator on Sacred Scripture has an obligation to demonstrate and support the teaching of the Faith on the absolute immunity from all error of the inspired text. Only after accepting this dogma of total inspiration and total inerrancy can the faithful Catholic go on to discuss the manner of expression, figures of speech, and literary modes used to express the truths of Sacred Scripture. The claim that any passage is exempt from this immunity from error, on the grounds that the passage is one or another type of literary genre, figures of speech, and various manners of expression are used to express truths; these factors do not exempt any passage from inerrancy. The claim that the assertion of falsehoods is part of a literary genre is likewise incompatible with the inspired inerrancy of Scripture. Pope Pius XII teaches that Sacred Scripture has an 'immunity from all error,' which includes freedom from historical errors, and freedom from error by inaccuracy. Literary genres are not exempt from inspiration and therefore no exempt from inerrancy. (Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium n.131., Cathechism of Catholic Ethics).

This is good solid teaching. I know that some (or perhaps the majority) of what is being taught in Catholic universities concerning Sacred Scripture is not in harmony with the teachings of Tradition-Scripture-Magisterium. I see proof of this almost everyday.

Conte also has some good passages explaining how the Magisterium uses the term dictation as a figure of speech. I will post those in the other thread I started.

Edited June 8, 2010 by kafka

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='08 June 2010 - 05:00 AM' timestamp='1275994815' post='2125586']
No kidding. God gave us brains for a reason, you know. A God who is Truth does not ask his followers to believe in contradictions. Transubstantiation is consistent with the facts. A textually perfect Bible is not consistent with the facts. If a religion claims that apes are kittens and kittens are apes, the religion is not true. Our Bible is inerrant. But not in the way that you claim. And claiming that it is textually perfect is a scandal to the thinking world.

What silliness. Go ahead and address the actual issues that I have raised, please. You know, the ones you have been so effortlessly dodging.
[/quote]

Why don't you address Pope Leo? You know, the magisterial document you have been so effortlessly dodging.

Anyway, I don't think most people believe in transubstantiation because it's "logical". It's not "logical". A logical person would not come to the conclusion that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. I believe it, and most Catholics believe it, because God has revealed it to us.

And Catholicism does not claim that kittens are apes, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

[kafka]

My theological opinion concerning Mark.

{2:23} And again, while the Lord was walking through the ripe grain on the Sabbath, his disciples, as they advanced, began to separate the ears of grains.
{2:24} But the Pharisees said to him, “Behold, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbaths?”
{2:25} And he said to them: “Have you never read what David did, when he had need and was hungry, both he and those who were with him?
{2:26} How he went into the house of God, under the high priest Abiathar, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and how he gave it to those who were with him?”

My opinion is that Jesus literally used Abiathar as a figure of speech so as to teach the Pharisees as well as everyone that he is the Son of the Father sent into the world as well as one true high priest. Notice he deliberately says "under the high priest Abiather" and not literally Abiathar, or Ahimelech or any particular priest. Jesus was referring to himself when using the figure Abiathar. He is the one and true high priest even in Old Testament times. All Old Testament and New Testament priests are under Jesus.

Mark under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit accurately reported what Jesus said. Abiathar in the Hebrew means "the [divine] father is pre-eminent" thus the figure directly teaches them (and us) that Jesus is the Son of the Father. He is the one high-priest between the Father and mankind. He alone glorifies the Father. He teaches us that the Divine Father is the pre-eminent Person of Trinity from whom the Son proceeds, and that the Father sent Him into the world. Thus Jesus is Lord on the Sabbath for his presence represents the pre-eminence of the Father.

{2:27} And he said to them: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
{2:28} And so, the Son of man is Lord, even of the Sabbath.”

Son of man is used by Jesus to refer to his human nature. Lord refers to Jesus' Divine Nature. So he is teaching in a figurative way using 'Abiathar' that he is the Son of the Father sent into the world and thus Lord of the Sabbath. He teaches us that the work he is accomplishing in obedience to the Father is pre-eminent even on the Sabbath. He is teaching us that the Father is Love and that the work of love is greater than disciplines. The doctrine of love based on the Divine Nature is greater than the disciplines of the Old Testament which are abrogated by Jesus and His Church. They are no longer necessary since the circumstance has changed. Jesus is sent into the world. Jesus represents the pre-eminence of the Father in the Church and in the world. He who sees Jesus sees the Father.

That is my original commentary.

Edited June 8, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

made some edits to further clarify my position.