It’s amazing they had the hubris to release it in the first place.
Still, it’s something to see the head of the thing noting that they can’t afford to do that kind of thing any more.
Oh, and I loved this bit:
Finn made clear that he was not trying to stifle criticism, but said that in the future, such statements should come from individual theologians, perhaps with others signing on, but not in the name of the CTSA.
In other words, "If you want to mouth off to the Vaticsan, you take the hit. I’ve got to look out for the good for the organization."
Half the purpose of issuing joint statements on behalf of the society was to protect the individual signatories by making them look like they’re part of a big, impressive group (or by not having individual signatories at all, just a joint statement of the organization). Having to make such statements on your own, without the society backing you up, will–indeed–"stifle criticism."
(Oh, and the other half of the purpose is to make the statements have more punch by them being issued by a society and not just an individual or a few individuals.)
So, I guess it is okay to make these kind of statements, just not in the name of the CTSA.
I like this:
“Many bishops form their view of us on the basis of our public statements, often influenced by advisors who are conservative theologians who don’t attend our meetings,” Finn said.
I wonder why they wouldn’t attend? I know why I wouldn’t darken the door of one of their meetings…
“…a false impression to outsiders”?
That must be “Newspeak” for “Too many people are understanding us way too clearly!”
In 1997, for example, the CTSA issued a statement on the ban on women’s ordination, concluding that there are “serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and its grounds in tradition.”
A 20th century committee is questioning authority and tradition of a Papal Encyclical? I don’t know even where to begin with my criticism of that. *rolls eyes*
Second, Finn argued, the public statements have exacted a steep internal cost in the CTSA by driving conservative theologians away.
And in other news, scientists discover that water is wet.
I find this more than a little interesting. Actually, such comments even being made is quite remarkable.
Does anyone know what this is referring to?
“The congregation has preferred secrecy and publicly renounced the due process guarantees of canon law”
I believe it is a comment about the due process for those being sanctioned or disciplined by the Church. So, they are complaining that the theologians that they support and the Church sanctions or disciplines are not getting the due process they think the theologians deserve.
Something else for them to complain about.
The interesting thing is the Sr. Butler who was head of the CTSA’s task force on women’s ordination which she agreed with at the time has now repudiated their conclusion and has written and excellent book called ” The Catholic Priesthood and Women:” which defends Church teaching in an in depth manner.
Good to see one person associated with CTSA having some humility.
Sr. Butler was one of the theologians involved in the Vatican’s document addressing Limbo.
They’re beginning to discover the meaning of Jesus’ saying, “…it is hard to kick against the goads”.
“They present us as individuals who gather to defend ourselves against hierarchical authority, but that’s only a small part of what we’re up to.”
Publicly usurping Church authority is only a small part of what we do.
“jority should not employ the mechanics of majoritarian democracy to produce statements that the minority would find offensive and leave.”
Oh! So close to understanding why we are proud our faith is not a democracy.
Here’s a hint: it does not have to do with people’s feelings.
>”The congregation has preferred secrecy and publicly renounced the due process guarantees of canon law”
I can translate that into english from leftspeak.
“Waaaaaaaaaaaah! They chewed us out secretly saying we are violating canon law, when we don’t accept their canonical authority!”
“The congregation has preferred secrecy and publicly renounced the due process guarantees of canon law”
Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant the “publicly renounced” part of the quote. Unless they just mean, here is how they acted so isn’t it just obvious.
I did think the thing about the public statements was funny: “So we, with tremendous hoop-la, issue a Public Statement – that is, a statement made in public, for the public to read, as a statement of what we think and support – saying the Pope is just this guy in a funny hat, and for some unknown reason, the bishops think this is not on! How dare they take our statement made available to the public and publicised and splashed about by us as if it was, you know, some kind of public document instead of what it obviously was, a private note of a talk between a couple of guys kicking it around over a few beers?”
Oh, the words “due process guarantees of canon law” really mean in English:
“our interpretation of the due process guarantees of canon law which we say that we have a canonical right to dissent”
So the Congregation denounces that.
“A 20th century committee is questioning authority and tradition of a Papal Encyclical?”
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an Apostolic Letter, not an Encyclical.
I’m thankful that this will indeed stifle criticism of the Church. As said earlier, I too find it remarkable that the CTSA is even saying such things to the public. Maybe they are finally in their death throes, or even better, their re-evangelization throes!
I believe it is a comment about the due process for those being sanctioned or disciplined by the Church. So, they are complaining that the theologians that they support and the Church sanctions or disciplines are not getting the due process they think the theologians deserve.
Oh puh-leeze. Church discipline has been a wet noodle since at least the start of Paul VI’s pontificate. When Hans Kung has been defrocked and excommunicated, then talk to me about the big, bad, mean, and oppressive Church. Until then, it’s like comparing Jimmy Carter to Hitler.
An op-ed on Papal ecclesiastical power/infallibility:
What do many contemporary NT exegetes conclude about the historic reliability of infallibity claims?????
Spirit under Trial- not of the historical Jesus : (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)
(Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)
1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)
2 Peter 1:20
Since Schillebeeckx basically also ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.
Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.
Conclusion: Infallibility/Papal Power has little Jesus-historic foundation as attestations are weak and entries made late in the gospel games.
Ok, “Hatcheteers” let it rip!!!
Hobby Horse poop, as usual. When, Jimmy, when?
**”Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant the “publicly renounced” part of the quote. Unless they just mean, here is how they acted so isn’t it just obvious.”**
-“Publicly renounced” – is when the Curia issues a statement that doesn’t conform to their understanding of the canonical processes. But, maybe Dr. Peters could clarify if needed.
Any reference related to Crossan in the realm of Christianity is a joke.
I still remember his statement on the History Channel’s farce on the Jesus family tomb, “If they found the bones of Jesus; it wouldn’t diminish my faith at all.” Good point coming from someone who denies the authenticity of the Gospels, in other words, “I have no faith”
Until that light goes on everything is darkness and there is a lot of it out there. I choose 2,000 years of Church history and my own personal experience.
Sin separates you from God, root out the sin and God will give you the grace you crave Realist.
“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an Apostolic Letter, not an Encyclical.”
Okay, fine. That distinction clarifies what for us, exactly?
Crossan: “Christ’s Body was probably eaten by wild dogs.”
OS may have been an Apostolic Letter but there is no question that the teaching is infallible and as argued in this link, it is probabley Ex- Cathedra!!
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
Oh puh-leeze. Church discipline has been a wet noodle since at least the start of Paul VI’s pontificate.
I’m sure the wet noodle industry would object to this claiming that a wet noodle is harder than Church discipline on this 🙂
Sorrie, Bernie (Realist), but your cut and paste job (once again) has nothing to do with the theological issue of papal infallibility. Try to address the issue next time.
Within Catholic theological matters are not determined by a narrow archaicism, whether scriptural or not.
All you can do is shoot down (not yourself, mind you, but merely references to others’ works) some warped sola scriptura straw man that only exists as a force in your own private mental world.
I don’t give a hootlet if you reject Catholic theological principles, but please learn what the issues at hand are and familiarize yourself with the system before you pretend to say anything meaningful about it.
On the matter at hand, papal infallibility is not understood by Catholic theologians (actual theologians, not Scriptural exegetes and/or scholars) to be based upon an interpretation (or documentation) of direct Scriptural claims. If you don’t understand the differences between Scriptural scholarship (religous or secular), hermeneutics, and systematic theology, then you are embarassingly ignorant of the issues at hand.
I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Catholic systematic theology. If that is not possible, at least describe the straw men you seem to be knocking down because they don’t exist in the real world.
BWAA HAAA HAAA HAAA!!!!!
Classic guerrilla posting, Realist style. Hatchet wildly swinging in every direction — not the historical Jesus! not written by St. Paul! God doesn’t know the future! — he ducks and rolls with a parting shot for his critics: “Hatcheteers!”
(snort)
Best laugh of the day. Thanks, Realist.
“Okay, fine. That distinction clarifies what for us, exactly?”
Nothing. I was just being nitpicky. I even surrounded my comment with fake HTML nitpick tags, but they didn’t appear because I put them in < > brackets and I guess the weblog software thought they were real.
Realist,
Can you provide something more original than the usual “The Bible is not True because Crossan tells me so” rubbish?
You’d be more convincing if you didn’t merely provide the usual formulaic renderings:
“As per historical REALIST studies, Bernard is an add-on who frequently turns prophecy into fables and fables into history.
220+/-3 s = ut + 1/2 at2
Bernard Crucifixion: (3c) Manny 1:2-3 = Moe 4:5-6, (6b) Jack 7:8-9”
Arigato!
To the Tune of “Jesus Loves Me”…
God’s a fable, this I know,
Liberal scholars tell me so,
Heaven is a sucker’s hope,
Crossan Says, and he’s my Pope
(Chorus)
Yes, Jesus is Dead,
It’s all in your head,
Mass is a con-game,
but I go anyway…
To me God is always near,
I see his face in every mirror,
Hell’s a myth (I’d better hope),
If it’s not, I’ve been a dope
(Chorus)
The Pope is just wrong,
You’ll see before long,
Catholics are buffoons,
But I’m one anyway…
The above could be titled “Realist’s Lament”, or some such…
Make up your own verse!
To me God is always near
As JPII sang it, chimpanzees are “as near to God as men are.”
Or as Jesus said, “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.'”
Well, that’s clear as mud.
To me God is always near,
I see his face in every mirror,
Yup. This sounds like something sung frequently in this “wasteland” 🙂
“Since Schillebeeckx basically also ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.”
LOL! God is outside of time and therefore knows all time but he really can’t because a finite being (Schillebeeckx)has perfect knowledge of the infinite (God). Gotta love it.
P.S. Realist, if you want to further your heretical beliefs, at least (try to) be logical.
Ok, “Hatcheteers” let it rip!!!
Interesting. He claims papal infallibility is false but is claiming scholarly infallibility (after all, he doesn’t DARE question them!) 🙂
This is a contradiction.
Hmmm,
And the rip of the day goes to all the “Hatcheteers” aka “old white European descendents of our Catholic only true faith, limbo-clutching order”. This seems to fit “1.2 billion Muslims, 2 billion Christians? Why? Because we were born Muslim or Christian and don’t know any better” with a few exceptions.
And I do believe the issue at hand is the power of the Pope/Vatican and its occasional disagreements with the Catholic theologians who publish in CSTA.
“Over the years, the CTSA has issued a number of critical statements on official church teaching or disciplinary interventions against theologians. In 1997, for example, the CTSA issued a statement on the ban on women’s ordination, concluding that there are “serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and its grounds in tradition. ” i.e. the tradition of the Rock.
“Realist “I was taught to be illogical and I am obliged to worship the fallible word of hack historians who would be laughed out of debate class” speaks so condescendingly towards others bloggers that the only proper thing to do is ignore him.
Who has serious doubts? Those doubters who doubt whatever they find conveniently doubtful.
Logic of Schillebeeckx: “Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women.”
What a puny, impotent god!
That’s just your finite, impotent understanding of Schillebeeckx’s logic.
LOL! But thanks for letting us know how little it takes to get your goat.
What are some of the good theological groups out there that are orthodox?
” Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.”
Not so. God is unchanging, and therefore must be outside of time. Since that is the case, he is not limited to a chronological witnessing of events within time as we are. While he knows all that will ever happen, he has not forced man to do anything. He merely observes (and permits)a man to do his(the man’s)will.
To tag onto David B’s post: Seeing something happening is not the same as causing it to happen.
Correction: He merely observes that man does his own will (or that of God).
God is unchanging, and therefore must be outside of time.
People who talk about “outside of time” are people who pretend to know what they’re talking about.
Indeed, Bill. If I went back to the 30’s I would know what hitler and stalin would do but would not be responsible. Schillebeeckx’s “logic” isn’t logical. In order for God to be perfect, he would have to know all things. Schillebeeckx apparently thinks God doesn’t know everything.
I once heard Jimmy liken God’s all-knowing power to a man who sees the totality of a stream. That he knows what will happen throughout the stream doesn’t mean he he was the author of it all.
Well, we either have a troll here, or a child who is in way over his head.
We cross-posted, David. I was, of course, referring to the anonymous drive-by poster.
People who talk about “outside of time” are people who pretend to know what they’re talking about.
I didn’t pretend that. I’m not married: does that mean that I can’t talk about Marriage? If I completely understood God’s immutable nature, I would be God.
Bill,
I wouldn’t have thought you were talking about me even without the clarification. ‘-)
Without time, there is no “outside.” “Outside of time” is nonsense speak.
Anon:
People who talk about “outside of time” are people who pretend to know what they’re talking about.
Finite beings who pretend they’re able to comprehend and capture the mind of a divine being whose understanding and wisdom is infinite don’t know what they’re talking about.
Create an entire universe out of nothing, then we’ll talk!
Tim J:
Love that Grammy Award-winning song!
Glad you’re back, brutha! ;^)
You disappeared off the face of this blog for quite some time! Your return is quite welcomed and refreshing!
BTW,
People who talk about everything as inside of time are limiting existence and commit a logical error.
If time always existed, then God had a beginning. If God had a beginning, then he owes his existence to another being, a greater being. If he were not the Greatest being, he would not be God. Just a really powerful guy.
If time always existed, then God had a beginning. If God had a beginning, then he owes his existence to another being, a greater being. If he were not the Greatest being, he would not be God. Just a really powerful guy.
David B.,
Excellent ‘Primary Cause’ argument in a nutshell!
“‘Outside of time’ is nonsense speak.”
How so?
(Yeah, on this blog you’re going to be asked to back up any definitive statements you post).
…and the creator of God would also be inside of time, and therefore would not be God, and would be created by another being…
The bottom line is that if time always existed, then God would not exist. Time would be God. Schillebeeckx’s “logic” leads to the deification of time. Absurd! God is not limited by time. He created it.
(Yeah, on this blog you’re going to be asked to back up any definitive statements you post).
bill912,
Definitive?
You give the person too much credit!
Definitive would mean he provided something substantive to his claims.
However, I would say that such was egregiously absent from his comments.
“Without time, there is no “outside.” “Outside of time” is nonsense speak.”
That is nonsense speak. You have made time God. If I am outside of a pit, it does not follow that the pit’s existence is necessary for mine.
“Definitive” as in a statement he claims is definitely true. Perhaps I should have used the word “definite” instead of “definitive”.
Remember people, to complain about a poster to Jimmy, do so in email. Point out as many threads where the offender has been problematic as you can.
Or point out the obvious troll-bait.
bill912,
no worries — I was more so interested in criticizing the anonymous poster, not you.
If time always existed, then God had a beginning.
Why must your god be either inside or outside of time? Is time inside or outside of time?
How so?
Because time and space are related, and to be without time is to be without space, without inside or outside, and not to pretend that even such phrases have any rational meaning.
to be without time is to be without space
Not everything occupies space; not everything is within time.
Not everything occupies space; not everything is within time.
That’s your concept and it exists within time just as you do.
That’s your concept and it exists within time just as you do.
Please demonstrate this with your evident understanding of quantum mechanics.
It’s as demonstrable as the time posted with each post and on your birth certificate.
Just a troll. Time to stop feeding it.
bill912,
An ideal suggestion!
His/her/its response to my question did it for me.
It’s like somebody asking the pressing question, “What is the meaning of Life?” but then getting the ridiculously puerile response, “A..B..C..D..E..F..G..this is what it means to me!”
Even some Monty Python quotes would’ve seemed more enlightening!
“Outside of time” is ridiculously puerile phrase.
Last time it was a Gnostic troll. Now it’s a materialist troll. We sure run the gamut here.
“Why must your god be either inside or outside of time? ”
I told you. God is eternal. He is not limited to time. He is infinitely perfect, and therefore not limited by anything created, including time.
“Is time inside or outside of time?”
How can you… Oh, never mind.
“Because time and space are related, and to be without time is to be without space, without inside or outside, and not to pretend that even such phrases have any rational meaning.”
God isn’t in space. God doesn’t have a physical ‘inside’.
“Not everything occupies space; not everything is within time.”
That’s your concept and it exists within time just as you do.
If God occupies spaces, then he does not supersede it. If anything exists that does not have it’s orgins in God, then God is not God. It is illogical. Space and time, like evreything else that was created, are not God. They exist separately from Him. He created them. There is one possible conclusion to your argument: God is subject to time. He is therefore not eternal, and therefore changeable, and therefore imperfect, and therefore not God. /// But that is illogical because God must be God. Creation must be created.
“Outside of time” is ridiculously puerile phrase.
So instead of acknowledging my previous answer to this silly statement, you merely repeat yourself. Looks like this conversation is over.
I told you. God is eternal. He is not limited to time.
So why limit your god to “outside of time”?
God isn’t in space. God doesn’t have a physical ‘inside’.
Nor an “outside.”
Space and time, like evreything else that was created, are not God. They exist separately from Him. He created them.
That’s your theory, your concept. Does your concept exist separately from you?
So instead of acknowledging my previous answer to this silly statement, you merely repeat yourself.
I repeat, your phrase “outside of time” is ridiculously puerile.
Oh, I’ve missed Jimmy’s site. Here, I get to be an
“old white European descendent of our Catholic only true faith, limbo-clutching order”, which is a nice change of pace for me.
BTW I’m curious as to why no one has mentioned that “time” is just an artificial construction used to explain aging and decay rate. I know that Jimmy had some really good posts and responses about time travel that addressed this point.
Excuse me, but is this the theology chat room?
So why limit your god to “outside of time”?
I don’t. God, while not subject to time, entered it in the Incarnation. It’s like this: A man (God)builts a stream. He sees the totality of the stream. That he knows what will happen throughout the stream doesn’t mean that he was the author of it all. It doesn’t mean that he can’t enter it. But he is NOT subject to it. If God were subject to time, he would not be God. To be subject to time means to be finite. Time is finite. God is Infinite. The infinite has perfect knowledge of the totality of the finite. He created it. Time is finite. God isn’t. He knows all that man will do. that doesn’t mean our actions are predetermined. Don’t try (unsuccessfully) to ‘pack’ the infinite into the finite. It won’t work. end of discussion. Take it of leave it. If you leave it, you leave behind reason and logic.
Father,
No, but it sure looks like it! 🙂
It seems to me that part of the problem is the attitude that freedom of speech means that one is free not only from being punished by the government for speaking, but freedom from any social consequences of one’s speech. How can the Church stifle the speech of people living in a country whose government cares not one wit what the Church says? All the Magisterium can really do is issue statements pointing out where Sam or Joe is in error — are the theolgians of the CTSA so spineless that they will not issue statements for fear that a Church official might say that they are wrong and explain why?
Part of the thinking behind the “marketplace of ideas” model is that ideas that are unsupportable get squelched by well-reasoned arguments.
God is outside of time… God is unchanging, and therefore must be outside of time… It doesn’t mean that he can’t enter it… God… entered [time] in the Incarnation.
According to your changing nonsense, your unchanging god went from “outside of time” and “unchanging” to having entered time, i.e. “inside” time. What does unchanging mean to you? Is entering time from “outside of time” a change?
If God were subject to time, he would not be God… To be subject to time means to be finite.
According to the story, Jesus was finite in many ways. For example, he had a finite birthday, walked only a finite number of days on earth wearing a finite pair of sandals, and had only 12 apostles. Was Jesus with his many finite attributes not God?
Time is finite.
In your concept of time, time is finite. Meanwhile, someone else’s concept of time might be that time is as infinite as your god. Indeed, some people associate god and “father time” as one and the same.
Don’t try (unsuccessfully) to ‘pack’ the infinite into the finite. It won’t work.
While your religion may have you packing the finite into the infinite or vice versa, other religions may hold them as two sides of the same coin.
Take it of leave it. If you leave it, you leave behind reason and logic.
You haven’t shown your “reason and logic” to be anything worth holding on to.
To say that God is “outside of time” is just shorthand for saying that He is not constrained – at all – by time (as we are).
He is eternal “now”. All that ever has been, is, or will be, is present to Him.
To use words like “outside” or “in”, “high” or “low” is simply to use common speech to try and express the Truth about God. If human beings are to talk about God at all, in spite of the inadequacy of language, then these kinds of words will be unavoidable. Rather puerile not to realize that.
Tell me, oh brave anonymous poster, how do mature minds like yourself describe God’s relationship to time? Or are you just blowing smoke? Straining at gnats while swallowing thirty-ton elephants?
The point being made, and that you avoided, was that nothing about free will or even “randomness” in the universe prevents God from knowing the future… it’s all the “present” to Him.
Besides, randomness – chance – is just a concept we made up to help us get around realities too complex for us to understand. And a good thing, too. We have better things to do than try and figure out all the forces and trajectories involved in every handful of seed we scatter.
According to your changing nonsense, your unchanging god went from “outside of time” and “unchanging” to having entered time, i.e. “inside” time. What does unchanging mean to you? Is entering time from “outside of time” a change?
Anon,
Jesus did not have a human body prior to the incarnation, but it also was not a change and the way that works is that if you are outside of time, that doesn’t stop you from touching time. It’s kind of like I could be outside of a stream but I can put my finger into the stream or my hand or my foot into the stream, if I want. And so, if you were, let’s say, a fish going down the stream and perceiving the stream sequentially (like we perceive time) then there would be a point before you got to my foot (if I’ve stuck my foot in the stream) and then there would be a point where you encounter my foot, and then there would be a point where you passed my foot. And so it would seem as if, from your fishy perspective that (and, indeed, a lot of people do have a kind of fishy perspectives – there are fishy people out there), then it would seem as if there was a time before my foot, and during my foot, and after my foot, but if I have sat there eternally on the streambed with my foot in the stream, then, in reality, my foot has always been there. So, there’s no change. It’s just you have gotten up to the point where my foot exists in the stream and that’s the way it is with the incarnation.
As a being who’s outside of time, Jesus took a human body in, let’s say, 4 B.C. and from the perspective of people prior to that time, they had not yet encountered his incarnation – they hadn’t yet reached the point in history where the incarnation occurs, but that does not mean that there was any kind of a change. Jesus has always, from all eternity, from his ‘outside of time’ perspective, incarnated in 4 B.C. (or whatever the actual year was). So, it doesn’t imply a change on his part, it’s just always been there. He’s always incarnated in 4 B.C. It’s just that from our time-bound perspective (like a fish moving down a stream); we may or may not have encountered that point in history where he is always incarnated, yet.
This is good.
I think this is a good fruit of an earlier clarifying event: Rome changed the laws on bishops’ conferences so that they wouldn’t try to teach authoritatively without having unanimous consent or a papal approval.
Now the CTSA is of course not an official body, let alone a magisterial one, but it has gotten the analogous message that the Church is a communion, not a democracy; that in a community that considers itself Catholic, a transient 51 per cent majority is not entitled to assert teachings that the Church does not support.
“Was Jesus with his many finite attributes not God?”
You might want to read up a bit on Jesus’ dual nature. “Finite” is not a word that could be used to describe any aspect of His divine nature.
Does focusing the Sun’s rays through a magnifying glass diminish the energy of the sun? Does the Sun have to get smaller in order to squeeze through the lens? No. Neither does the Incarnation change the Divine Nature.
if I have sat there eternally on the streambed with my foot in the stream, then, in reality, my foot has always been there.
You present yet another change in this silly story. First the foot was “outside” the stream, then it “entered” the stream from the outside, and now you tell us the foot has always been “in” the stream. We’ve gone from “must be outside” to “entered” to “always been in the stream.”
So, there’s no change
Next you’ll be claiming circles are squares.
Jesus has always, from all eternity, from his ‘outside of time’ perspective, incarnated in 4 B.C. (or whatever the actual year was).
No, that’s your “inside of time” perspective on what you imagine an “outside of time” perspective to be.
As if an “outside of time” perspective is dated and measured in years no less.
“Finite” is not a word that could be used to describe any aspect of His divine nature.
We’re talking about his finite nature, walking a finite number of days in a finite pair of sandals with a finite number of apostles.
Does the Sun have to get smaller in order to squeeze through the lens?
The sun doesn’t squeeze through the lens.
Last time it was a Gnostic troll. Now it’s a materialist troll. We sure run the gamut here
Agreed. Regardless, let’s not feed the energy creature.
“Was Jesus with his many finite attributes not God?”
Yes… that was sorta my point.
The post above was sent out in error. It should have looked like this;
“The sun doesn’t squeeze through the lens.”
Yes… that was sorta my point.
You present yet another change in this silly story. First the foot was “outside” the stream, then it “entered” the stream from the outside, and now you tell us the foot has always been “in” the stream. We’ve gone from “must be outside” to “entered” to “always been in the stream.”
I would recommend first that you study the basics of Theology prior to further immersing yourself with things that seem to be too complex for your mind to grasp.
As to the subject of Christology which you seemed to be quite ignorant of, just to provide some basics, a man by the name of Boethius was the one who provided Christianity with the definition of “Person” in terms of this subject.
Specifically, with regard to Christ, Christ in his person – if you walked up to Jesus Christ 2000 years ago and talked to Him – He is one person and that person is divine. He is the second person of the blessed Trinity; the Word Made Flesh; Almighty God. But, this person incarnate uniquely – different from any human being because a human being has one nature, and that is a human nature. That doesn’t mean he is a human nature but he has a human nature.
Well, Christ, when we talk about his person, is divine but he has two natures through the miracle of the Incarnation and there’s not another example of any person that has two natures. This is a Miracle. But, he has two natures: divine and human.
Now, the nature that any other human being has is what makes him distinctly human. Because, if I just say he was a person, he could be an angel. An angel is a person because they’re rational. It’s the nature of a human being that makes him a human person.
With Christ, we have something a little bit tricky here because once we get to Christ, a lot of our Boethian definition and such kind don’t always hold up all that well because with Christ, it is His nature, the divine nature, that makes him a divine person.
But, in the Incarnation there is added this human nature. So, what do we do with this?
Well, the human nature of Christ, we say in Theology, is accidental to his person.
It’s not essential for Christ to be human in order to be a person.
He’s a divine person for all eternity.
Thus, the human nature of Christ hypostatically joined in the person, (we say ‘hypostatically’, that simply means ‘in the person’ or the Greek word ‘hypostasis’).
It’s still accidental to His person so that we don’t say that He is, all of a sudden, a human person; no, he’s a divine person but he also has a human nature which puts him in a unique category.
Now, when we talk about the wills, then, in Christ; because he has two natures, he would then have two wills because the intellect and the will reside in the nature.
So, the divine nature has an intellect and will that is divine. The human nature has an intellect and will that is human. Therefore, Christ (now, of course, a regular human being doesn’t have this – he doesn’t have 2 intellects; he has 1 intellect and 1 will) is unique in that He has two natures in his person, he has 2 intellects and 2 wills.
Now, as far as the stream bed example is concerned, Christ in his divine nature is outside of time and you could argue then that because the whole of his human life is linked to his divine nature, the whole of his human life is linked to eternity and, thus, from that perspective, although it seems to us that Christ was incarnated in 4 B.C., since Christ in his divine nature is an eternal being (i.e., genitum, non factum), the event of his incarnation is/was/will be that which had always taken place.
That is, in accordance with the example given, God may have stuck his foot in the stream (God Incarnated), but just like the fish that travels up the stream (i.e., the passage of time), humanity does not encounter the ‘foot’ (i.e., the event of the incarnation) until it finally encounters it within its temporal world — so it is from our perspective that it seems that it hadn’t occurred until that time ultimately unfolds in our history since we, as finite beings, are limited to time and sequentiality.
However, God is an Eternal Being who resides in the Eternal Now where past, present and future is equally present to Him.
Anonymous (Realist),
“According to your changing nonsense,”
Your rude speach is not needed.
“your unchanging god went from “outside of time” and “unchanging” to having entered time, i.e. “inside” time.”
The best way to put it is that God is above time. At the incarnation, he entered, and yet nothing was added or subtracted from him, and therefore did not change him.
“What does unchanging mean to you? Is entering time from “outside of time” a change?
No. God never changes. He always has the fullness of all perfection. I repeat: Entering time did not add or detract from him, and therefore did not change him. Try to behave in a charitable manner. Don’t talk down to me just because you misunderstand me.
“While your religion may have you packing the finite into the infinite or vice versa, other religions may hold them as two sides of the same coin.”
Ah ha! You are a all-human-are-gods person. That clears things up.
In your concept of time, time is finite.
Time, by it’s definition, is finite. in order for it to be time, it must have a beginning, a middle, and an end. God is eternal. He had no beginning.
“According to the story, Jesus was finite in many ways. For example, he had a finite birthday, walked only a finite number of days on earth wearing a finite pair of sandals, and had only 12 apostles. Was Jesus with his many finite attributes not God?”
Jesus’s human nature was finite. His Divine nature was not. One person, two natures. He is able go to any moment in time. That is how he is not subject to it. He knows the extent of what he created (time). If he didn’t know the extent of what he created he couldn’t have created it.
Why are you guys wasting your time on debating “realist”? If he really were a realist he’d be a Catholic! You guys are being trolled big time.
Don’t feed the energy creature.
BobCatholic,
You’re right. You can lead a horse to water…
Jesus’s human nature was finite. His Divine nature was not.
David B.,
I believe this is in error.
Jesus’ human nature is tied to his divine nature.
Mind you, the resurrected Christ both body and spirit?
When God became man, the infinite creator became a finite creature without ceasing to be God. By His gift of Himself God took on our human limitations. He could now suffer as we suffer. He could now become hungry as we become hungry. He could become thirsty as we could become thirsty. He could now be offended, as we could be offended. He could now experience the limitations of our human nature, as we experience our limitations as human beings.
“Not everything occupies space; not everything is within time.”
That’s your concept and it exists within time just as you do.
What does that have to do with anything? My concept of my computer exists inside my thoughts, but my computer doesn’t exist inside my thoughts.
Esau, the theology gets a little complicated.
It’s a bit like asking whether light is a wave or a particle.
C’mon, let’s not accuse the anonymous fellow of being Realist. Realist has never shown any particular interest in this topic, and he usually signs his posts. Plus, if it was him, he’d be referencing that guy who wrote a book about God not knowing the future.
My concept of my computer exists inside my thoughts, but my computer doesn’t exist inside my thoughts.
Your phrase “inside my thoughts” is ridiculously puerile.
Hey! Who’s the Anonymous Smart Arse using my email address!
Oh, that would be me, mocking the anonymous smart arse who is such a literalist that he can’t understand a metaphor like “outside of time” . . . .
😀
Eileen,
Thankyou!!!
I put gardening and golf before God after my second op-ed (Posted by: Realist | Jun 11, 2007 3:30:43 PM) and did not get an opportunity to check the responses to it until just now. I have no idea who the “time” guy/gal is or who reiterated Father Schillebeeckx’s conclusions about omniscience in his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 ((softcover).
.
“While your religion may have you packing the finite into the infinite or vice versa, other religions may hold them as two sides of the same coin.”
The same person who claims that the phrase “outside of time” is puerile does not hesitate to use the phrase “two sides of the same coin” to describe finity and infinity. C’mon, Shelly.
He was citing what “other religions may hold”.
Still praying you come to know Christ one day, Realist, and maybe even consider becoming Catholic.
Tim J,
As noted previously, I have joined all those liberal Catholic theology professors in the true Catholicism free of fiction and embellishment. You might want us sometime in the world of reality.
This is a special risk, Finn argued, in an era of “ideological splintering of news outlets,” so that statements which appear to challenge church authorities will be “spun” according to the agendas of different groups.
LOL. Translation: “Oh for the good old days of the monolithic Old Media, when only our side of the story got out.”
Diane