Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Oct 12th 2013 new
Blokes like that have basically given up reason for madness, to the point where he is willing to operate against the Truth. He needs prayers for conversion. Also, what's up with the Jesuits? I have noticed that many of them are into anti-Catholic ideology.
Oct 12th 2013 new
Hi Lynea,

Yes I have to admit when I wrote this I was not certain whether Lazarus and the rich man were real historical figures or not. I am an IT project leader, not a scripture scholar. If I am not certain about something then I don't state it, consequently, I chose to argue from Gerald's premise that there is no historical substance to this passage. But perhaps I misunderstood this as well. Gerald, is this true? Do you presuppose the absence of a historical reality behind the personages of this passage?

Unfortunately there is a point of confusion between the improper literal sense and the spiritual or typical sense. Just like the sacraments there are three requirements for the typical senses and if any single one is lacking it is invalidated. Criteria number one is a real existence of the person, event or thing. It is this first criteria that separates metaphors, allegories and parables of the improper literal sense from the three typical senses, the allegory of the improper literal sense from the allegory of the typical sense. Rightly or wrongly, in my own mind if a story has no historical substance then I label it a parable (the improper literal sense) but if it does have a historical foundation then it as an allegory (literal, typical sense). I know that strictly speaking this is not correct to do, there is no scientific justification for this distinction, it just how I choose to handle this potential point of confusion when discussing the senses of scripture. So in my earlier posting where I use the term parable I understand there to be an absence of a historical foundation. Now whether in this or that particular scriptural passage there is or is not a historical foundation I am not competent to say. I work in IT, not biblical exegesis.

At the time I composed my posting I consulted a textual concordance of the bible and "The Rich Man and Lazarus" was listed as a parable. However, what I failed to do then but have done tonight is to consult Cornelius A Lapides commentary on this passage and he states that this is a true history because "1 Christ does not call it a parable, as He usually does in the case of parables, but tells a true story. 2 because this beggar is named Lazarus, and the rich revellers name is Nincusis, according to a Hebrew tradition quoted by Euthymius" and interestingly enough he mentions that in honor of this Lazarus is founded many old churches in various places, and in the suburbs of Rome, outside the city and the Porta Angelica there is a church and a hospital of S. Lazarus for the cure of leprosy.

I stand corrected. If I had looked at Lapides commentary before submitting my earlier post, I would have modified it accordingly but this oversight on my part does not harm the exegetical principles I have stated, just how I applied it, and in so doing I prove myself to be a better project leader than an exegete.

Are you beginning to understand why I have so few postings? It is better to remain silent and look a fool than to open ones mouth and confirm it! laughing

Oct 13th 2013 new
(quote) Brandon-854380 said: If the theory disagrees with any of these points it is incompatible with Catholic Doctrine.

God created everything in its whole substance from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
(Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)

Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])

Genesis contains real historyit gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)

Adam and Eve were real human beingsthe first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)

Polygenism (many first parents) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6the one ancestor referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)

The beginning of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ [Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).

The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adams body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.

Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).

Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).

After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).

Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).

The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).

We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).

All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)

The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been createdexcept for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)

St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings andall kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)

The historical existence of Noahs Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)

Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
(Pius XII, Humani Generis)

Investigation into human evolution was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.



Thanks Michael. By the way, this is Lynea's secretary. She's gone A.W.O.L. from the forums, and possibly this entire site, but she asked me to thank you for your commentary and to write, "Lapide RULES!"

And might I add, so does this young guy named Brandon.
Take note young Catholic ladies: Here's a truly orthodox keeper!
Oct 13th 2013 new
(quote) Michael-941533 said: Hi Lynea,

Yes I have to admit when I wrote this I was not certain whether Lazarus and the rich man were real historical figures or not. I am an IT project leader, not a scripture scholar. If I am not certain about something then I don't state it, consequently, I chose to argue from Gerald's premise that there is no historical substance to this passage. But perhaps I misunderstood this as well. Gerald, is this true? Do you presuppose the absence of a historical reality behind the personages of this passage?

Unfortunately there is a point of confusion between the improper literal sense and the spiritual or typical sense. Just like the sacraments there are three requirements for the typical senses and if any single one is lacking it is invalidated. Criteria number one is a real existence of the person, event or thing. It is this first criteria that separates metaphors, allegories and parables of the improper literal sense from the three typical senses, the allegory of the improper literal sense from the allegory of the typical sense. Rightly or wrongly, in my own mind if a story has no historical substance then I label it a parable (the improper literal sense) but if it does have a historical foundation then it as an allegory (literal, typical sense). I know that strictly speaking this is not correct to do, there is no scientific justification for this distinction, it just how I choose to handle this potential point of confusion when discussing the senses of scripture. So in my earlier posting where I use the term parable I understand there to be an absence of a historical foundation. Now whether in this or that particular scriptural passage there is or is not a historical foundation I am not competent to say. I work in IT, not biblical exegesis.

At the time I composed my posting I consulted a textual concordance of the bible and "The Rich Man and Lazarus" was listed as a parable. However, what I failed to do then but have done tonight is to consult Cornelius A Lapides commentary on this passage and he states that this is a true history because "1 Christ does not call it a parable, as He usually does in the case of parables, but tells a true story. 2 because this beggar is named Lazarus, and the rich revellers name is Nincusis, according to a Hebrew tradition quoted by Euthymius" and interestingly enough he mentions that in honor of this Lazarus is founded many old churches in various places, and in the suburbs of Rome, outside the city and the Porta Angelica there is a church and a hospital of S. Lazarus for the cure of leprosy.

I stand corrected. If I had looked at Lapides commentary before submitting my earlier post, I would have modified it accordingly but this oversight on my part does not harm the exegetical principles I have stated, just how I applied it, and in so doing I prove myself to be a better project leader than an exegete.

Are you beginning to understand why I have so few postings? It is better to remain silent and look a fool than to open ones mouth and confirm it!

Michael, Corneilius A Lapides knows his 'stuff' --- to put very lightly. Why else would our Lord use a specific name?
Oct 29th 2013 new
(quote) Bernard-2709 said: http://www.amazon.com/dp/3848216256/ref=cm_sw_su_dp?tag=audiosancto-20
Hi Bernard et alia,

First, as always, I have to issue the usual disclaimer. I am not trying to denigrate the sincere religious beliefs of others. For those who believe in the literal meaning of Genesis, fine, I respect that. I really do.

On the other hand, Hunter is right. What he wrote was excellent. If the facts of science are somehow incompatible with the philosophy of a religious tradition, then perhaps it might be a good idea to reexamine the philosophy.

Most of us do this more than we think. Consider, for example, the parents who think their daughter is a saint and would never even look at a boy. And then, they discover the usual evidence. It would be foolish for them to think that their daughter isn't somehow involved with young men. They are also fools for not allowing their daughter to date, but that is another story.

The facts and theories of science are based on empirical evidence. To deny what we can see before our eyes is, in a certain sense, a misuse of the gifts of God.

Jim ☺
Oct 29th 2013 new
(quote) Gerald-283546 said: Father Ripperger, although I guess his heart is in the right place, is a bit of an idiot, and I would not believe a word the man says. I've read some of his stuff and believe he is obsessively confused.

One of my pet peaves is Catholics who elect willful ignorance in denying the vision of their own eyes and senses and the results of scientific inquiry. Don't get me worng: many such people are good people and many of them will likely be in heaven before me: I am not saying that they are bad people. But since the Good Lord gave us brains and reason and senses, to totally deny the data provided by reason and our senses and choose, despite evidence to the contrary, to take a literalist, fundamentalist (essentially Protestant) view of the world is pure folly to me.

I do understand that many of the Church fathers believed in literalist interpretations of Genesis because they had no evidence to the contrary and Science had not yet been invented. They had invincible ignorance. But there is no excuse for the modern Catholic who has 300 years of scientific development before him, at least if he has benefitted from a high school education or more.

Thus, I have little patience for people who believe the world was created in 6 literal days and that Adam and Eve were two people walking around in a garden with lions loving lambs, and that Methusalah lived to be 680 years or however many was claimed. OK, if you've had only an 8th grade education from a Third World country I can accept it. But if you've been exposed to the knowledge since the Scientific Revolution and you still think the world is flat, you
are just Willfully Ignorant in my view. And that is a shame because you are throwing away the gift of intelligence given you by God. Saying that some saint or some pope hundreds of years ago held this view is no excuse because knowledge is cumulative and progresses. Human nature may or may not be improving, but knowledge is certainly improving.

For me, I need a spouse with more intelligence than to believe that Genesis was meant to be taken literally. I'm not saying a person who buys into that is a bad person or a bad Cathloic. If you believe those myths that is your choice and your right, but just that I require someone with more intelligience to be my spouse.
Hi Gerald et alia,

Gerald, it's nice to see you again! We have to find something to fight about laughing

This isn't it. I concur with what you wrote here.

Here's a polite note to those who believe in the literal meaning of Genesis. Which version do you believe, and why? You can't logically believe they are both literally true at the same time.

Jim ☺
Oct 30th 2013 new
(quote) Tom-975374 said: I hope you've been to confession for this comment. That's no way to speak about a Priest. By the way Fr Ripperger has qualifications coming out of his nose. He's a very, very clever man.

Good luck finding a spouse who's not an idiot. I'm sure the rest of us idiots will do just fine! We're in the company of the saints.
Hi Tom et alia,

Which saints are you talking about?

Modern science was born in the 16th Century, when the mathematician and Nicholas Copernicus published
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium , and Italian mathematicians solved the quadratic, cubic, and quartic equations. Then Galileo came along, and pointed his telescope at the sky, and what he saw helped to verify what Copernicus wrote. Then Newton and Leibnitz both invented a little mathematical thing called calculus, and science was of and never looked back.

Aside from Euclid, there was no science to speak of in the modern sense before Copernicus. Theologians, who were typically the most educated people of the dark ages, had to work with what they had. Unfortunately, they did not have much. Ptolemy, for example, thought Earth was the center of the universe. Aristotle, considered one of the master philosophers of the ancient world, thought scorpions arose from dirty clothing. The distinguished British mathematician Sir Edmond Whittaker said that "Aristotle's version of natural philosophy was worthless and misleading from beginning to end.". The point here is that some people try to tie in theological ideas with ideas which have long been known to be bankrupt. If you do this, you will fail. I guarantee it. And let's suppose that somehow evolution was shown to be false. This in no way means that Creationism wins. The idea that if evolution loses, creationism wins is a false dilemma, which does not allow for other possibilities.

The theory of evolution has been around for 142 years. The Theory of Evolution has been constantly modified since its inception, like all good scientific theories are. There are lots of other scientific theories. Atomic theory, theoretical mechanics, the theory of electricity and magnetism, the theory of thermodynamics, and so on. Do you know about the germ theory of disease? That's a theory. Americans tend to confuse the word theory with hypothesis. There is a big difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Finally, I must defend my distinguished fellow wizard Gerald. Gerald and I might disagree on a lot of things, and my discussions and debates have always been interesting, at least from my viewpoint.

But Gerald is almost as smart as James (aka Insect W. James). I never met Gerald, although I would like to sometime. However, based on our conversations or debates, any woman would be more than lucky to snag him.

Don't pick on Gerald. You're going to lose.

James ☺
Posts 161 - 167 of 167