To Pagano on Modernism
macaddicted
these points on modernism.
From James Akins at EWTN
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/MODERSM.TXT
Principal Errors: (of modernism)
(1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason
Having read Rahner, I do not believe this.
(2)external signs of revelation, such as miracles and prophecies, do not
prove the divine origin of the Christian religion and are not suited
to the intellect of modern man;
Don't believe this one either. I do believe that the historical events,
as related in the Bible, are not necessarily equivalent to modern
history. That is a question not of an events historicity but of its
portrayal in scripture.
(3) Christ did not found a Church;
Obviously I don't agree with that
(4) and the essential structure of the Church can change;
Nope. Not that one either.
(5) theChurch's dogmas continually evolve over time so that they can
changefrom meaning one thing to meaning another;
Doctrine develops, but once defined does not change.
(6) faith is a blind religious feeling that wells up from the
subconscious under the impulse of a heart and a will trained to
morality, not a real assent of the intellect to divine truth learned by
hearing it from an external source.
Which kills any theology of grace, so I don't agree with that one.
either.
And if you wonder, the points at the end of the article are not
objectionable to me either.
--
macaddicted
"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time."
James Taylor
Jacob Rizor
>From: macaddicted haris...@starsend.com
>Date: 3/18/2002 3:20 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <180320021320286758%haris...@starsend.com>
>
>Since you seem to be concerned about my views I thought I would answer
>these points on modernism.
>
>From James Akins at EWTN
>http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/MODERSM.TXT
>
>
>Principal Errors: (of modernism)
>
>(1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason
>
>Having read Rahner, I do not believe this.
>
>(2)external signs of revelation, such as miracles and prophecies, do not
>prove the divine origin of the Christian religion and are not suited
>to the intellect of modern man;
>
>Don't believe this one either.
>I do believe that the historical events,
>as related in the Bible, are not necessarily equivalent to modern
>history. That is a question not of an events historicity but of its
>portrayal in scripture.
>
>(3) Christ did not found a Church;
>
>Obviously I don't agree with that
>
>(4) and the essential structure of the Church can change;
>
>Nope. Not that one either.
>
>(5) theChurch's dogmas continually evolve over time so that they can
>changefrom meaning one thing to meaning another;
>
>Doctrine develops, but once defined does not change.
>
>(6) faith is a blind religious feeling that wells up from the
>subconscious under the impulse of a heart and a will trained to
>morality, not a real assent of the intellect to divine truth learned by
>hearing it from an external source.
>
>Which kills any theology of grace, so I don't agree with that one.
>either.
Max Phillips
beatle...@aol.committee wrote on 2002.03.18 8:52 PM:
[snip]
>> Principal Errors: (of modernism)
>>
>> (1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason
>>
>> Having read Rahner, I do not believe this.
> But I do...
Karl Rahner has proven by natural reason that God exists? Better rush the
news to the philosophical community! -Max, creationist by faith alone,
evolutionist by evidence alone
[snip]
macaddicted
<obscu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> in article 20020318235149...@mb-cr.aol.com, Jacob Rizor at
> beatle...@aol.committee wrote on 2002.03.18 8:52 PM:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Principal Errors: (of modernism)
> >>
> >> (1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason
> >>
> >> Having read Rahner, I do not believe this.
> > But I do...
>
> Karl Rahner has proven by natural reason that God exists? Better rush the
> news to the philosophical community! -Max, creationist by faith alone,
> evolutionist by evidence alone
No. He has provided a model in which reason, informed by faith, can
prove the existence of God.
Bob Pease
"macaddicted" <haris...@starsend.com> wrote in message
news:190320020743528505%haris...@starsend.com...
> In article <B8BC05EA.3871%obscu...@earthlink.net>, Max Phillips
> <obscu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > in article 20020318235149...@mb-cr.aol.com, Jacob Rizor at
> > beatle...@aol.committee wrote on 2002.03.18 8:52 PM:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> Principal Errors: (of modernism)
> > >>
> > >> (1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason
> > >>
> > >> Having read Rahner, I do not believe this.
> > > But I do...
> >
> > Karl Rahner has proven by natural reason that God exists? Better rush
the
> > news to the philosophical community! -Max, creationist by faith alone,
> > evolutionist by evidence alone
>
> No. He has provided a model in which reason, informed by faith, can
> prove the existence of God.
Reason, informed by faith (in the right things), can prove anything.
So how is this amazing discovery worth anything??
RJ Pease
(yes I read his stuff, but that was in Berkeley, and you know what goes on
THERE!!) (Ad locu argument)
RJ Pease
A Pagano
>Since you seem to be concerned about my views I thought I would answer
>these points on modernism.
Pagano replies:
My concern was that if I left your posts unchallenged non Catholic
readers might get a very mistaken idea of the Church's opinion on
Scriptural interpretation.
Your view that the literal sense of the verses of Scripture can never
be the direct, objective, immediate meaning of the words themselves is
unmistakably false. As I pointed out with the passage from John 11
such a view turns Scripture into one large allegory.
**************************************
Pagano comments:
I suspect the attempt by you (and others) to mythologize Scripture by
denying that the literary genre of many of the Scriptural passages are
historical would be in the top 10 of modernist errors.
Max Phillips
anthony...@verizon.net wrote on 2002.03.19 8:22 PM:
> On 18 Mar 2002 16:20:40 -0500, in talk.origins you wrote:
>
>> Since you seem to be concerned about my views I thought I would answer
>> these points on modernism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> My concern was that if I left your posts unchallenged non Catholic
> readers might get a very mistaken idea of the Church's opinion on
> Scriptural interpretation.
>
> Your view that the literal sense of the verses of Scripture can never
> be the direct, objective, immediate meaning of the words themselves is
> unmistakably false. As I pointed out with the passage from John 11
> such a view turns Scripture into one large allegory.
> **************************************
>
> Pagano comments:
> I suspect the attempt by you (and others) to mythologize Scripture by
> denying that the literary genre of many of the Scriptural passages are
> historical would be in the top 10 of modernist errors.
You're kidding, of course, Tony. "Modernist" theologians and textual critics
don't do that and never have, going clear back to Wellenhausen, including
Roman Catholic "modernist" theologians, such as Hans Kung. So how can it be
one of "the top 10 of modernist errors"?
Max, creationist by faith alone, evolutionist by evidence alone
[snip]
David Sienkiewicz
> On 18 Mar 2002 16:20:40 -0500, in talk.origins you wrote:
>
> >Since you seem to be concerned about my views I thought I would answer
> >these points on modernism.
>
> Pagano replies:
> My concern was that if I left your posts unchallenged non Catholic
> readers might get a very mistaken idea of the Church's opinion on
> Scriptural interpretation.
So far, you're comments haven't been at all enlightening, Tony, while
macaddicted has been informative and shown precisely what I suspected.
The Catholic Church changes with the times.
You don't.
> Your view that the literal sense of the verses of Scripture can never
> be the direct, objective, immediate meaning of the words themselves is
> unmistakably false. As I pointed out with the passage from John 11
> such a view turns Scripture into one large allegory.
No, Tony, it does not. Your example from John 11 failed to do that
and, in fact, is better evidence that much in Scripture is either
exaggerrated, myth or allegory.
I don't believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
Consequently, to me, that part of the New Testament narrative is, at
best, illustrative and, at worst, outright myth.
Of course, I'm not Catholic, but I know quite a few Catholics who
agree at least that it's an illustrative tale no doubt exaggerrated
from an actual event. There are a number of possibilities and,
fortunately, intelligent Catholics will accept those possibilities.
Frankly, if the Church was as literal in their thinking as you
represent, I'd be very disappointed, but here's a shock for you, Tony:
I attended a Catholic university and I took several philosophy and
comparative religion courses there. Only one of my many instructors
was NOT a priest.
I'll accept their view over yours any day. I'll also accept that they
are better equipped to interpret both Scripture and Church view of
Scripture than you.
And really, Tony, all you have shown is NOT that anyone else is in
error with respect to what is said in Church writing, or even in the
interpretation of the writings. All you have shown is that you
disagree, and it's clear to THIS lurker (you remember us, don't you,
Tony - the group you sometimes are trying to convince?) from the
excellent and detailed responses of macaddicted, Steven J. and Mike
Dunford that you are simply insisting that your own interpretations
are the final word on the subject.
That's an argument from authority, Tony.
> Pagano comments:
> I suspect the attempt by you (and others) to mythologize Scripture by
> denying that the literary genre of many of the Scriptural passages are
> historical would be in the top 10 of modernist errors.
And yet you are not even able to tell us what "literary genre,"
"literary sense" and "literary meaning" are supposed to be and how
they differ, let alone what the specific alleged errors are and WHY
they are errors.
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Pagano replies:
> My concern was that if I left your posts unchallenged non Catholic
> readers might get a very mistaken idea of the Church's opinion on
> Scriptural interpretation.
>
> Your view that the literal sense of the verses of Scripture can never
> be the direct, objective, immediate meaning of the words themselves is
> unmistakably false. As I pointed out with the passage from John 11
> such a view turns Scripture into one large allegory.
> **************************************
>
> Pagano comments:
> I suspect the attempt by you (and others) to mythologize Scripture by
> denying that the literary genre of many of the Scriptural passages are
> historical would be in the top 10 of modernist errors.
When we speak of understanding the "immediate meaning of the words
themselves" we are speaking of them in the context of what the author
was saying to the audience he was writing to in his time. That is why
we use the historical-critical method.
If by "immediate meaning of the words themselves" you mean that we can
pick up a modern translation of the scriture and from that
interpretation understand what the words mean than you are moving
towards a "literalist" interprative method. It pretends:
1. that literary conventions do not change over centuries;
2. that differences between languages are not significant;
3. that cultural changes between writer and reader don't play a part in
how texts are translated;
4. that reading communities (i.e., church memberships) don't influence
the way we read.
So I will ask a question I probably should have asked a long time ago.
When you speak of the "literal" sense do you mean:
1. The meaning based on what the author was telling his audience in his
historical context.
2. The meaning we can take from our modern translation.
3. I didn't give your meaning, and you will explain it to me here.
As to John (and Lazurus). I did respond to you, but will again. The
resuscitation of Lazurus (only Jesus was resurected) I have always
believed that it refers to a historic event. This does not make John a
history book.
I will give a counter example. The synoptic Gospels have Jesus going up
to Jerusalem once, at the end of his ministry. John, however, has Jesus
going up to Jerusalem three times (2:13ff, 5:1ff, 12:12ff). John has
the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry
(2:13ff), just after Cana, but it is at the end of his ministry in the
synoptics (Mat. 21:12ff, Mk. 11:15ff, Lk. 19:45ff). If we are to
understand the Bible in general, and the Gospels in particular, as
history than which is right?
macaddicted
Sienkiewicz <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote:
> So far, you're comments haven't been at all enlightening, Tony, while
> macaddicted has been informative and shown precisely what I suspected.
> The Catholic Church changes with the times.
Just a note of caution. The Church may change the way it approaches
doctrinal truth in presenting it to the people, but the doctrinal
truths don't change.
Robin Levett
news:190320020743528505%haris...@starsend.com...
> <obscu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > in article 20020318235149...@mb-cr.aol.com, Jacob
Rizor at
> > beatle...@aol.committee wrote on 2002.03.18 8:52 PM:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >> Principal Errors: (of modernism)
> > >>
> > >> (1) God cannot be known and proved to exist by natural reason
> > >>
> > >> Having read Rahner, I do not believe this.
> > > But I do...
> >
> > Karl Rahner has proven by natural reason that God exists? Better
rush the
> > news to the philosophical community! -Max, creationist by faith
alone,
> > evolutionist by evidence alone
>
> No. He has provided a model in which reason, informed by faith, can
> prove the existence of God.
Has someone told William about this? He must be spinning in his
grave!
<sigsnips>
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
David Sienkiewicz
> In article <35fa3772.02032...@posting.google.com>, David
> Sienkiewicz <david.si...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > So far, you're comments haven't been at all enlightening, Tony, while
> > macaddicted has been informative and shown precisely what I suspected.
> > The Catholic Church changes with the times.
>
> Just a note of caution. The Church may change the way it approaches
> doctrinal truth in presenting it to the people, but the doctrinal
> truths don't change.
Said better than I did, yes, but again, I'm not Catholic - I don't
view them as "truths," though I can accept that Catholics do.