Does proof and or the questions matter ?

[superblue]

The Council of Trent, asked a lot of questions, society today still asks the same questions that Trent and V2 already asked and to some degree already issued answers on.

The proof to those answers really comes down to faith in the end. The Shroud , the cross of Christ, the Holy City, all these items are physical that can be seen an touched, if it were allowed, and verified to at least be dated to the physical time if science were allowed free reign to examine and verify , and same for archeologists who will never be allowed to dig where they want...... IF there was a way to prove that some things that were to be believed were not true, does it matter ?

The only thing to this that can not be changed is the Death and Resurrection of Christ and the institution of the Church and the Mass and sacraments. 

Pick any major question of Trent, and for what ever reason the Church decided okay we agree, that this one issue is not as we thought it was, and agree and will not teach x,y,and z /// does that in turn ruin the faith of Christians and some how  make Christ less divine and his sacrifice some how invalid ?   I am curious as to if any where in the Vatican has it ever been discussed in such a fashion. Or was that exactly what Trent and V2 was getting at, that if we do not agree on everything that indeed everything else is wrong. ?

 

[superblue]

One argument that arose was the baptism of Christ, in that Christ became the Son of God at that point specifically. An in turn one of the thoughts of the era was that Christ was adopted by God.

What I am trying to figure out in part, is what the Church answered to that in the form of, no that is not correct because if it were true, that would mean that everything Christ did was invalid and or wrong.... that is what I am trying to figure out if it has been stated closely as such or is it a general understanding and if so why would people feel that way.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think with the topic of Christ's Baptism, the explanation I heard was that if He was only 'adopted' then He would not be truly Divine and then how could He redeem us. The Redeemer needed to be Divine to offer the perfect sacrifice and human because humans have sinned. So Christ was always God and is right from the start. 

Of course there might have been other explanations for the Church teaching too. But all the heretical beliefs have heretical conclusions. 

[superblue]

Ty for the reply M.L.F, 

 

Did the debate ever include why the Redeemer had to be divine and why God could not adopt and still make things the way they are.

I am just going to stick with this one question, I would have to think eventually someone would say well God did this out of love, which I mean if that is the case God has a weird sense of what love is, for me it would be easier to believe this definition of love at least in the sense that Christ accepted the path he was chosen to be on by God, instead of given no choice and now humanity has to grapple with how God shows His love. An if Christ can not be divine through adoption, how are we as adopted children, through Christ , and our baptism are to be considered sharing in a divinity because we are adopted and become Children of God an in turn that at least gives us the ability to share in that divinity on at least a spiritual level. It just seems that this one argument is drawing a picture that says God has to be this way because x.y.z; when everything that Christ taught and what everyone thought Christ would be and his mission would be; was also wrong in that same assumption.  Though if God chooses to show his love through having armies wipe out cities and pagans, to finally putting humanity into a permanent debt that can never be repaid by sacrificing His only Son, and tells us through the church that this is his way of showing his love, why then I ask myself do I have trouble with that.

It appears to me that Christ loves humanity more than the Father by being willing to go through with the decision God the Father has made. Though I still haven't been able to separate the thought process of Christ being completely God, but not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. An the need for Christ to pray to the Father when Christ is completely God.  Right now I am more trusting of Christ than I am God the Father. I trust both Christ an the Holy Spirit more than I do God the Father, but feeling rather distant lately and then I turn to the Blessed Mother to get back on track.

 

But again  M.L.F I think the answer you provided is as good as it is going to get, so TY

[Credo in Deum]

2 hours ago, superblue said:

 

It appears to me that Christ loves humanity more than the Father by being willing to go through with the decision God the Father has made. Though I still haven't been able to separate the thought process of Christ being completely God, but not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. An the need for Christ to pray to the Father when Christ is completely God.  Right now I am more trusting of Christ than I am God the Father. I trust both Christ an the Holy Spirit more than I do God the Father, but feeling rather distant lately and then I turn to the Blessed Mother to get back on track.

 

But again  M.L.F I think the answer you provided is as good as it is going to get, so TY

John 15:9, we can thank the Father for His love, since His love is the measure in which Christ loves us. 

[superblue]

2 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

John 15:9, we can thank the Father for His love, since His love is the measure in which Christ loves us. 

I do appreciate the sentiment, but I only find an oxymoron and plenty of contradiction in how God the Father defines love.