Infallibility of the Faith
#61
(06-23-2014, 09:46 PM)Melkite Wrote: It's not in the idea that concepts share all the same criteria where my doubt lies.  It is simply in "what would I consider crazy about Catholicism if I were not Catholic?" at the time.  What in Catholicism asks us to suspend reason in order to believe them.  Even if ismah is not a direct parallel to papal infallibility, believing papal infallibility still asks us to suspend rational thought to believe it.  It's not a naturally occurring phenomenon.  We have to accept that the laws of nature are somehow working differently here than on any other human being.

When the Pope invokes a special authority promised by God, he speaks as the Vicar of Christ teaching, who since Christ is God cannot be wrong. How is that "suspending rational thought". I would say rather, it uses rational thought. God cannot be wrong, this man speaks with the authority of God in this specific situation, therefore, this man cannot be wrong in this specific situation.

(06-23-2014, 09:46 PM)Melkite Wrote: They're not written about anywhere else.  For example, there are no reports from other sources of all the tombs in Jerusalem opening and the dead walking the streets.  There are no other sources that talk about the veil in the temple being torn in two (not really miraculous, but significant).  If these didn't really happen, how can we be sure the rest did?  And, again, believing that they happened requires one to at least momentarily suspend rational thought.

While yes, there are some miracles recorded in the New Testament which lack corroborating support, they still have very solid support from ration thought (no suspension necessary).

Many scholars defend the historical reliability of the gospels from different perspectives. Most center around the manuscript evidence from early copies of the New Testament. Others take this evidence and look historically at the early Church:
- The authors of the New Testament were eyewitnesses of the events they describe, or at least immediate disciples of eyewitnesses with peer-review from eyewitnesses,
- The authors had nothing to gain from inventing a God-Man since this only brought them labor, persecution and death. Each was willing to die for his message, and all but St. John did, who himself was exiled.
- The writings undoubtedly date from the first century,
- The doctrines of the New Testement could not have come from the religious imagination of a Jewish writer (e.g. hypostatic union, True Presence, no more Mosaic Law) hence it could not be a product of pious invention,
- The New Testament has historical integrity, since it was public from very early along in liturgical reading and any change would have been controversial.

If the New Testament is more historically reliable and better established than any other work of ancient literature, then why should the miracles within be doubted. Further, during the violent persecutions know falsity of any of the miracles would have quickly disproven this new faith and been a great boon for the Jews, yet NO ONE questioned the historical authenticity of the miracles during the persecutions, they only deny a divine power for them.

The historical reliability of the NT demonstrates the miracles to be true. As a good friend put it once, the Gospel without the miracles is like the Lord of the Rings without the ring. For example, Christ allegedly raised Lazarus, which won him the ire of the Pharisees who plotted to kill him, and the renown of the people, which led the the Palm Sunday entrance, which increased his fame and further increased the Pharisee's desire to kill him. Yet if Lazarus did not rise from the dead there would have been no Palm Sunday, and no reason for the Pharisees to want to kill Christ. The historically provable events assume the truth of the miracle. No miracle, no crucifixion.

Further, the whole Sabbath controversy was about Christ miraculously healing people on the Sabbath, but if He did not heal anyone, then there was no controversy. If there were no miracles why did crowds follow Christ everywhere, and why are the Pharisees powerless to stop Christ? Why were the crowds bitter on Good Friday, because based on the miracles, they expected Christ to deliver them from the Romans, and instead he was killed, but if there were no miracles then there would have been no reason to expect that Christ was the Messias.

So, while corroborating data would be nice, we don't need it to show that some miracles happened.

(06-23-2014, 09:46 PM)Melkite Wrote:
Quote:And somehow scientific studies can detect supernatural effects? Isn't science about the natural, observable world, not about the supernatural (i.e. non-observable world).?

No.  Science can detect when there is no difference between a control group and a test group that is supposed to have supernatural effects taking place.  In studies where people were asked to pray for a group of people that had cancer to be healed, and there was a control group where no one received prayer, there was no difference in the incidence of cancer going into remission or being spontaneously healed in the two groups.  Studies like this have been replicated multiple times.

And this proves what exactly? That they did not detect a supernatural effect? That people die of cancer, even when people pray for them? Did they measure whether the prayers affected the dispositions of the patients and the holiness of their deaths? Is not such a test exactly the contrary of Faith? Why would God answer prayers which are offered as part of a research study meant to test Him?


(06-23-2014, 09:46 PM)Melkite Wrote: If this is true, then what is the purpose of supplicatory prayer?  If God acts outside of time, then our prayer can in no way alter that action.  It is worthless to ask of God anything.  It would also mean that predestination is true, even more fully than what the Calvinists propose, and that every evil that falls upon us, even if only passively so, was planned and created by God.

God at the same time sees the merit we will earn, penance we will do, prayers we will offer, and the operations of the universe are contingent on these things just as much as on the natural law. God saw that man A would commit a grave sin, allowed it, and also saw that man B would offer penance and prayer in reparation for this sin and the conversion of man A. That, for God, was seen from all eternity as well, and His grace was planned based on this as well. So certain things are contingent on our prayers, but God does not hear them as you and I, sequentially and in time.

In fact that's the complete opposite of Calvinist predestination, which says our prayers and good actions merit us nothing. Rather the Catholic says, that God from all eternity planned certain things based on the prayers and good actions He knew we would do, and without which He would not have acted. We don't then really change His will, but instead we correspond to His will by offering the prayers He willed we would offer so that certain graces He will to grant would be granted.

[Edited by Vox to remove extraneous quoting that made it look as if Melkite's words were those of MagisterMusicae]
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-22-2014, 10:20 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-22-2014, 10:41 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-22-2014, 11:01 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by medievalman86 - 06-22-2014, 08:50 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by seanipie - 06-22-2014, 09:39 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:48 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 08:04 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by PolishTrad - 06-23-2014, 08:10 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 10:14 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 10:19 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 10:20 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 10:33 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 10:59 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:03 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:06 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:09 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:11 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Clare Brigid - 06-23-2014, 11:12 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:17 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:18 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:20 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:24 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:29 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:35 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 11:36 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 11:45 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:03 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 12:11 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:13 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:14 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:20 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:22 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Clare Brigid - 06-23-2014, 12:24 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:27 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:31 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 12:34 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 12:35 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 12:40 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 01:03 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 01:22 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 01:50 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 01:57 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 02:07 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 02:10 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 03:24 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 03:26 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 03:44 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 03:54 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Copeland - 06-23-2014, 03:56 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 04:26 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 04:31 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-23-2014, 04:40 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Qoheleth - 06-23-2014, 08:52 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Melkite - 06-23-2014, 09:46 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by MagisterMusicae - 06-23-2014, 11:48 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Beardly - 06-24-2014, 12:00 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Clare Brigid - 06-24-2014, 09:09 AM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by J Michael - 06-24-2014, 12:51 PM
Re: Infallibility of the Faith - by Beardly - 06-24-2014, 03:57 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)