Love,understanding and forgiveness.
#31
(12-04-2010, 01:19 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-04-2010, 12:41 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-04-2010, 12:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The Incarnation is not rational.
The virgin birth is not rational.
Miracles are not rational.
The Resurrection is not rational.
The Ascension is not rational.
Transubstantiation is not rational,

It's too bad you see it that way.  None of those statements are true, and contradict the Church teaching that faith & reason can never oppose each other.

I was paraphrasing Vetus Ordo, who made the same point to me in another thread. If you take a completely naturalistic, scientific view of things, none of those things are rational. Miracles do not happen. Corpses do not come back to life, People do not bodily ascend into the sky. Believing that these things happened requires a belief in the supernatural -- something beyond science. I'm not claiming that they didn't happen, only that the ordinary laws of science would have to have been suspended. If you disagree, please provide a scientific explanation of the Resurrection, or of how the words of a priest can transform a wafer of bread into the Body of Christ. There is no rational scientific explanation for either of these things. Believing in them requires a "leap of faith".

I did understand your point but the natural vs. the supernatural and rational vs. irrational are two completely different things.  The miraculous is indeed unnatural - by definition - but its existence is only "irrational" if one has already adopted a materialistic philosophy contrary to Catholicism.

It is a dangerous and un-Catholic mode of thinking to pit faith vs. reason.  This is basic but I've observed here over the last several months that a number of "traditional" Catholics are confused on this topic.

There is indeed no "scientific" (natural) explanation for the miraculous but it merely confuses the issue to put the word "rational" there as well.
Reply
#32
(12-04-2010, 02:24 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-04-2010, 01:19 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-04-2010, 12:41 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-04-2010, 12:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The Incarnation is not rational.
The virgin birth is not rational.
Miracles are not rational.
The Resurrection is not rational.
The Ascension is not rational.
Transubstantiation is not rational,

It's too bad you see it that way.  None of those statements are true, and contradict the Church teaching that faith & reason can never oppose each other.

I was paraphrasing Vetus Ordo, who made the same point to me in another thread. If you take a completely naturalistic, scientific view of things, none of those things are rational. Miracles do not happen. Corpses do not come back to life, People do not bodily ascend into the sky. Believing that these things happened requires a belief in the supernatural -- something beyond science. I'm not claiming that they didn't happen, only that the ordinary laws of science would have to have been suspended. If you disagree, please provide a scientific explanation of the Resurrection, or of how the words of a priest can transform a wafer of bread into the Body of Christ. There is no rational scientific explanation for either of these things. Believing in them requires a "leap of faith".

I did understand your point but the natural vs. the supernatural and rational vs. irrational are two completely different things.  The miraculous is indeed unnatural - by definition - but its existence is only "irrational" if one has already adopted a materialistic philosophy contrary to Catholicism.

It is a dangerous and un-Catholic mode of thinking to pit faith vs. reason.  This is basic but I've observed here over the last several months that a number of "traditional" Catholics are confused on this topic.

There is indeed no "scientific" (natural) explanation for the miraculous but it merely confuses the issue to put the word "rational" there as well.

OK. I don't think we have any real disagreement. My basic point was that the use of reason is not only OK, but required. The person I was originally responding to seemed to be claiming that Catholics weren't allowed to think at all, but just had to blindly accept everything the Church says. I think it's a little more complicated than that. I accept basic teachings of the Church (and when and if I cannot do so, I will cease to be a Catholic), but I'm also going to think about them. One of the reasons I chose to return to the Catholic Church is that it allows me to do that.
Reply
#33
(12-04-2010, 01:19 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-04-2010, 12:41 PM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-04-2010, 12:34 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The Incarnation is not rational.
The virgin birth is not rational.
Miracles are not rational.
The Resurrection is not rational.
The Ascension is not rational.
Transubstantiation is not rational,

It's too bad you see it that way.  None of those statements are true, and contradict the Church teaching that faith & reason can never oppose each other.

I was paraphrasing Vetus Ordo, who made the same point to me in another thread. If you take a completely naturalistic, scientific view of things, none of those things are rational. Miracles do not happen. Corpses do not come back to life, People do not bodily ascend into the sky. Believing that these things happened requires a belief in the supernatural -- something beyond science. I'm not claiming that they didn't happen, only that the ordinary laws of science would have to have been suspended. If you disagree, please provide a scientific explanation of the Resurrection, or of how the words of a priest can transform a wafer of bread into the Body of Christ. There is no rational scientific explanation for either of these things. Believing in them requires a "leap of faith".

The ability of unaided human reason to know God is shown here in the definition from the Vatican Council, Sess. III, de Revel., can.i.:

“If anyone shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema.”

The proofs of this are shown in the New Testament, - Romans I, 18-20; culminating in verse 20: “For the invisible things of Him [God] from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.” In other words, God, Who is per se invisible, after some fashion becomes visible to human reason. Not by positive revelation, nor yet by the interior grace of faith; but solely by means of a natural revelation imbedded in the created world.
Reply
#34
If the issue here is why can't homosexuals have a religious vocation, my suggestion is just simply live your life as if you have a religious vocation... What I mean is that you don't need the approval of the Church to live simply and to make your own private vows to Our Lord of poverty and chastity.
You can live your own kind of hermitical lifestyle that fits with your personality, you don't need to ask anyone's approval for that. If you have some friends that want to join you in that, go for it.
There is nothing stopping gay people from living a devout lifestyle, attending mass daily, keeping silence at home, having a small chapel in their house etc.
Stop complaining about why you can't be a holy priest and just start getting holy!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)