Some confusion in regards to apostles

[Cam42]

[quote]I don't confuse mythology with history, nor fact with fiction[/quote]

Then stop createing your own, on all parts.

[quote]But I particularly enjoy reading the claims of posters who have clearly lost their arguments, but pretend that they have won them.[/quote]

Been rereading your own posts again, huh, brother Littleles.

Cam

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 31 2005, 12:10 PM'] Hi Paphnutius,
I don't confuse mythology with history, nor fact with fiction.
And I don't respond to Inquisitions by posters who have lost their original arguments.
But I particularly enjoy reading the claims of posters who have clearly lost their arguments, but pretend that they have won them.
LittleLes [/quote]
Lost an arguement? Lets review shall we?

1) We said that Fr. Brown was unorthodox because he comes closer than a hair's breadth of denying such things as the Virginal Birth, Immaculate Conception, etc...

2) You retorted by mocking us for following the "party line," and used sarcasm to degrade us for not facing up to the facts of modern theologians.

3) I came back and pointed out that it is not a party line to believe in those things but essential to being Catholic a la the Creeds. One must believe in them to be Catholic. I then questioned your faith.

4) You replied by pointing out disciplenes that you disgaree with.

5) I noticed they were disciplenes and called you on that, pressed the question about your faith, and said dont confuse faith with party lines.

This was not about whether the faith is true, but whether or not Fr. Brown is an orthodox Catholic scholar. We have shown that he all but denies essentials of the faith as laid down in the creed. You cannot accept that he goes against the faith on such issues but instead support him by pointing out disciplenes which you call party lines?

We have lost? I think not. You have continously side stepped question after question about matters pretaining to faith by pointing out disciplenes that the Church may of been wrong on.

So my question for you is? Is that your fancy way of saying, "No Paphnutius, I do not believe in Catholicism even though I claim to be one. No, I do not believe in the creedal statements, but isntead wish to make my own, thus making me a cafeteria Catholic. No, I do not believe in the real presence, or Ressurection, thus making what faith I do have in vain." That is what I am hearing.

The arguement was never about their accuracy, but whether they were orthodox. We have shown they disgree with articles of faith putting them against orthodoxy (right belief).

Thank you Littleless for admiting that you are not a Catholic. I am glad that you finally came to terms with it. Now you may begin to pray that God may help you with your struggles of doubt and faith.

[LittleLes]

Hi Paphnutius,

Lets sum up your argument.

"We have shown that he (Fr. Ray Brown) all but denies the essentials of faith laid down in the creed."

Apparently, since his books all contain the nihil obstat and imprimatur which attest that the contents are not contrary to Catholic faith and morals, the reviewers do not agree with you.

And being twice appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission indicates that the pope did not dispute what Brown held as true.

Could it be that your interpretation of the "creed" is in error then? Or perhaps the Church is backing away from a strict interpretation of what is in the creed.

At least the pope, his book reviewers, and little me.

LittleLes

Edited April 1, 2005 by LittleLes

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 1 2005, 09:03 AM'] "We have shown that he (Fr. Ray Brown) all but denies the essentials of faith laid down in the creed."
Apparently, since his books all contain the nihil obstat and imprimatur which attest that the contents are not contrary to Catholic faith and morals, the reviewers do not agree with you.
[/quote]
I have told you that the nihil obstat shows that there is nothing directly offensive to doctrine etc... I may of over emphasized how close they came. For that I apologize. Try it sometime Littleles. The nihil obstat does not mean, which I think you are asserting, that they are in complete accordance with Church teaching. Those that give the nihil or imprimatur detach themselves from supporting any opinions and the like in the book for a good reason.

[quote]And being twice appointed by the pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission indicates that the pope did not dispute what Brown  held as true.[/quote]

I already gave you my thoughts on that. You asked me if I thought that they could misjudge him. I replied yes, it has happened before. I also said that simply becasue someone serves two terms in an office does not make him correct.

[quote]Could it be that your interpretation of the "creed" is in error then? Or perhaps the Church is backing away from a strict interpretation of what is in the creed.
[/quote]

If you mean that me thinking when we say "was born of the Virgin Mary" actually means that we believe he was born of the Virgin Mary then perhpas I am wrong in my interpretation. Or "on the third day He rose from the dead" means He rose from the dead on the third day, I could be wrong in thinking that, but then again your not Catholic so of course we will disagree.

[LittleLes]

Yes Paphnutius,

You might want to update your thinking on those last two points by reading:

"The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus" by Fr. Raymond E. Brown. I believe this book carries the Imprimatur.

LittleLes

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 2 2005, 06:41 AM'] Yes Paphnutius,

You might want to update your thinking on those last two points by reading:

"The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus" by Fr. Raymond E. Brown. I believe this book carries the Imprimatur.

LittleLes [/quote]
You are seriously overplaying the Impriamatur card. Do you know what that means? It means that something is free of doctrinal or moral error. Not that the Papcy supports all of the claims made in it, or supports everything the book said.


Fr. Brown stated that there lacked biblical evidence that the Virginal Birth is a physical fact. Is that a doctrinal error to state that the Bible only mentions the Virginal Birth in two infancy narratives? No. Is it unorthodox to carry it to such extremes to throw doubt on something like that? Yes. He states that the authors may of ment that it not be taken literaly. That is his theory, and it is unorthodox. The Tradition of the Church has always (as far as I know) held that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary.

His book recieved the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat because it is free of doctrinal error, not because the Holy See endorses his theories.

[LittleLes]

Hi Paphnautis,

Thank you for admitting that Fr. Raymond Brown's writing have been found to be free of doctrinal or moral error.

Interesting that you are trying to maintain the "what the Church has always taught " criteria for historical truth.

LittleLes

"The Church has always taught that it is infallible, and since it teaches this, this is infallibly taught." Is this your basic thesis?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 3 2005, 09:55 AM'] Hi Paphnautis,
Thank you for admitting that Fr. Raymond Brown's writing have been found to be free of doctrinal or moral error. [/quote]
I mentioned that earlier in the thread, you just were not paying attention. I actually did so twice. Review the thread.

[quote]Interesting that you are trying to maintain the "what the Church has always taught " criteria for historical truth.[/quote]

That is not what I am trying to maintain. I am saying that for a Catholic to be orthodox, one must assent to dogma and doctrine. Fr. Brown leaves something to be desired in some of these areas. He does not straight out deny them, but leaves that door wide open almost inviting others to go through it. I do not recall, at least, saying that the Church says X so X must be true beyond doubt. I did not turn this into a discussion about Fr. Brown's accuracy, you keep trying to do that. I am simply stating that he is not a very orthodox Catholic.

[quote]"The Church has always taught that it is infallible, and since it teaches this, this is infallibly taught."  Is this your basic thesis? [/quote]

Save that for the infalliblity thread. I did not bring up infalliblity. I simply stated that it is in our [b]creeds [/b]our [b]profession of faith [/b]to believe in X, Y, and Z. Once again you try a slide of hand to a different topic. That is distracting and annoying to say in the least. Please stick to the topic at hand. If you reject my definiton of orthodoxy please feel free to offer your own.