Posted on 03/14/2007 12:26:28 PM PDT by Ottofire
After the Discovery Channel aired The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a follow-up show was presented, The Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look. Hosted by Ted Koppel, two guests were brought on to challenge the conclusions of Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor. Archaeologist William Dever was asked what he thought of the documentary. Dever replied, "For me it represents the worst kind of Biblical archaeology, even if it is anti-biblical, because it seems to me, the conclusions are already drawn in the beginning." Dever nailed it. A tomb was found, Jacobovici began concluding it was Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene. Then evidence from Gnostic writings, statistics, and DNA all testified to the necessary conclusion. A non-Christian, Simcha Jacobovici notes he was only interested in finding ossuaries with the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph." I dare say he found exactly what he was looking for, and it could not have been otherwise. I sometimes make the joke that humans are masters of selective perception. That is, we see only what we want to. That which doesn't fit gets filtered out. While his documentary was being cross-examined on the Koppel show, it was obvious Jacobovici was being forced to see the reality he had filtered out. He was noticeably upset. He commented more than a few times that he was just a filmmaker. He was simply presenting his findings as an introduction for others to scrutinize. In other words, he had no meaningful response to the reality he had filtered out. As I thought about the methodology that went into the Jesus Tomb production, I couldn't help but think how similar this approach is to that used by modern Roman Catholic apologetics. It begins with a conclusion: The Roman Church is the true church established by Jesus. Then evidence from the Bible and history are brought in to testify to this truth. Catholic apologist Marcus Grodi had initially been vexed by doctrinal differences within Protestantism. Commenting on his conversion, Marcus Grodi has said, "The more I read church history and Scripture the less I could comfortably remain a Protestant. I saw that it was the Catholic Church- the Roman Catholic Church- that was established by Jesus Christ, and all other claimants to the title 'true Church' had to step aside. It was the Bible and Church history that made a Catholic out of me, against my will (at least at first) and to my immense surprise" [Patrick Madrid (ed), Surprised By Truth (Encinitas: Basilica Press, 1994), 12]. Only a page or two before, Grodi mentions that it was a lecture and a subsequent meeting with Scott Hahn that led him to wonder if God was calling him to the Catholic Church. Grodi admits he immediately read through Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and then launched into seriously reading Catholic books and the early Church Fathers. Grodi admits, "After listening to dozens of tapes and digesting several dozen books, I knew I could no longer remain a Protestant" (p.51). In other words, Grodi immersed himself into the writings of the Catholic worldview. It was Roman Catholic glasses that magnified certain facts he was already predisposed to. He saw only what he wanted to.
Grodi concludes his conversion story by saying, "To cease to deep in history is to become a Protestant" (p.56). But I would say it is exactly the opposite. The Roman Catholic has to read history and find it supporting the Roman church. They filter out what doesn't fit. For instance, the writings of Saint Augustine are highly revered, as is the proof text Matthew 16:18 for establishing the papacy. What isn't highly revered is Augustine's opinion on this text. In The Retractions, Augustine corrects his earlier opinion that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. According to Augustine the rock is Christ or Peter's confession which pointed to the person of Christ. Or, I've read a Catholic webpage declare Saint Augustine is the one who first established the criteria for the canon. What they dont want to see is Augustine doesn't have any notion of an infallible list nor an infallible ability of either himself or a church council when the canon was being discussed. Similarly, quotes that have nothing to do with a current Roman belief are brought forth to prove the historicity of Roman Catholicism. I was looking over a quote from Clement of Alexandria used by the Catholic Answers periodical This Rock. They run a feature entitled, What Do The Fathers Say? The October 2006 issue provided a few quotes from church fathers on praying to the saints. Clement is cited as saying, "In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]). Does this quote historically prove the practice of praying to the saints? Not in the least. It doesn't say anything about praying to saints. I know neither the heart of Simcha Jacobovici or Marcus Grodi, but I can't help but wonder if these men shared a similar experience. When he questioned whether God was calling him to the Catholic Church Grodi felt "frightened and exhilarated" (p.50). When finding an ossuary with the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph" Jacobovici commented, "I tried to stay calm, but something told me that this was not simply an example of an everyday occurrence" (The Jesus Family Tomb, p. 43). These men were excited by their predisposed conclusions, not the evidence. For had they sifted through the evidence carefully, they would have been forced to see the reality that exists, not the one they wanted to exist.
Catholic ping!
The writer's faulty reasoning matches his poor grammar skills.
Please elaborate about the faulty reasoning.
A statement is not true because it is said. It must be defended and defended well. I am interested why you think your statement is true.
***********
Oy vey. The problem with the above is that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Jesus.
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . .
The Discovery Channel's latest religious faux pas is used as a parable for the conversion of Marcus Grodi, which clearly irritates White.
A thoroughly tortured analogy quite in keeping with White's other half-baked offerings recently posted here.
There are two aspects frequently misunderstood about prayer to saints. One is, the pedagogical value of reflecting upon the lives of saints. No one can seriously dispute that. Second is that the saints pray to God with us -- they intercede. A prayer to a saint as a separate from God deity is heretical. But the prayer with the saints is indeed illustrated in the Clement of Alexandria's passage. The author simply does not understand the subject matter claim, so he does not understand the apologetics of the claim.
But Augustine disagrees later in life with that.
Is Augustine wrong if he disagrees with what the later RCC teaches? If he is wrong how can the RCC use him for teaching tradition? Is he only wrong when he disagrees with the later RCC?
If so is the RCC just cherry picking Early Church Fathers doctrine from what they want to hear? Is this the way to authenticate the so called one true church? The Spirit guides the cherry picking?
There are differences in opinion between the Fathers on certain issues. It contributed to the division between the Latin Church and the Eastern Churches.
But Augustine disagrees later in life with [his earlier interpretation of Peter as the Rock of Mt 16:18].There's an interesting post on Catholic Analysis blogspot concerning this issue. Specifically, the blogger refutes the conclusion that Augustine 'recanted' his earlier interpretation:
In sum, if Wills had quoted directly from Augustine, the reader would know that Augustine was not rejecting out of hand interpreting "the rock" in Matt. 16:18 to be Peter. All Augustine did was to explain an apparent contradiction in his own past writings and say that both interpretations were respectable and possible choices for the reader to make. In reading Augustine's review of his past works, we must keep in mind that his review--a better word to use than the unduly harsh term "retractions"-- of his past work was marked by an extreme meticulousness ...I also found a post on Catholic Answers that similarly questions the translation of Augustine's work, Retractationes:
Your minister friend's confusion stems from his sloppy reading of Latin. Augustine never authored a work entitled Retractions. He did write Retractationes (also known as Retractationum) between 426-427. His purpose was not to recant of any Catholic doctrines he held but, rather, to clarify and enhance his previous efforts to explain and defend them.
After the Discovery Channel aired The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a follow-up show was presented, The Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look. Hosted by Ted Koppel, two guests were brought on to challenge the conclusions of Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor. Archaeologist William Dever was asked what he thought of the documentary. Dever replied, "For me it represents the worst kind of Biblical archaeology, even if it is anti-biblical, because it seems to me, the conclusions are already drawn in the beginning." Dever nailed it. A tomb was found, Jacobovici began concluding it was Jesus and his wife Mary Magdalene. Then evidence from Gnostic writings, statistics, and DNA all testified to the necessary conclusion.
A non-Christian, Simcha Jacobovici notes he was only interested in finding ossuaries with the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph." I dare say he found exactly what he was looking for, and it could not have been otherwise. I sometimes make the joke that humans are masters of selective perception. That is, we see only what we want to. That which doesn't fit gets filtered out. While his documentary was being cross-examined on the Koppel show, it was obvious Jacobovici was being forced to see the reality he had filtered out. He was noticeably upset. He commented more than a few times that he was just a filmmaker. He was simply presenting his findings as an introduction for others to scrutinize. In other words, he had no meaningful response to the reality he had filtered out.
As I thought about the methodology that went into the Jesus Tomb production, I couldn't help but think how similar this approach is to that used by modern Roman Catholic apologetics. It begins with a conclusion: The Roman Church is the true church established by Jesus. Then evidence from the Bible and history are brought in to testify to this truth.
Catholic apologist Marcus Grodi had initially been vexed by doctrinal differences within Protestantism. Commenting on his conversion, Marcus Grodi has said, "The more I read church history and Scripture the less I could comfortably remain a Protestant. I saw that it was the Catholic Church- the Roman Catholic Church- that was established by Jesus Christ, and all other claimants to the title 'true Church' had to step aside. It was the Bible and Church history that made a Catholic out of me, against my will (at least at first) and to my immense surprise" [Patrick Madrid (ed), Surprised By Truth (Encinitas: Basilica Press, 1994), 12]. Only a page or two before, Grodi mentions that it was a lecture and a subsequent meeting with Scott Hahn that led him to wonder if God was calling him to the Catholic Church. Grodi admits he immediately read through Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, and then launched into seriously reading Catholic books and the early Church Fathers. Grodi admits, "After listening to dozens of tapes and digesting several dozen books, I knew I could no longer remain a Protestant" (p.51). In other words, Grodi immersed himself into the writings of the Catholic worldview. It was Roman Catholic glasses that magnified certain facts he was already predisposed to. He saw only what he wanted to.
Grodi concludes his conversion story by saying, "To cease to deep in history is to become a Protestant" (p.56). But I would say it is exactly the opposite. The Roman Catholic has to read history and find it supporting the Roman church. They filter out what doesn't fit. For instance, the writings of Saint Augustine are highly revered, as is the proof text Matthew 16:18 for establishing the papacy. What isn't highly revered is Augustine's opinion on this text. In The Retractions, Augustine corrects his earlier opinion that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. According to Augustine the rock is Christ or Peter's confession which pointed to the person of Christ. Or, I've read a Catholic webpage declare Saint Augustine is the one who first established the criteria for the canon. What they dont want to see is Augustine doesn't have any notion of an infallible list nor an infallible ability of either himself or a church council when the canon was being discussed.
Similarly, quotes that have nothing to do with a current Roman belief are brought forth to prove the historicity of Roman Catholicism. I was looking over a quote from Clement of Alexandria used by the Catholic Answers periodical This Rock. They run a feature entitled, What Do The Fathers Say? The October 2006 issue provided a few quotes from church fathers on praying to the saints. Clement is cited as saying, "In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]). Does this quote historically prove the practice of praying to the saints? Not in the least. It doesn't say anything about praying to saints.
I know neither the heart of Simcha Jacobovici or Marcus Grodi, but I can't help but wonder if these men shared a similar experience. When he questioned whether God was calling him to the Catholic Church Grodi felt "frightened and exhilarated" (p.50). When finding an ossuary with the inscription "Jesus, son of Joseph" Jacobovici commented, "I tried to stay calm, but something told me that this was not simply an example of an everyday occurrence" (The Jesus Family Tomb, p. 43). These men were excited by their predisposed conclusions, not the evidence. For had they sifted through the evidence carefully, they would have been forced to see the reality that exists, not the one they wanted to exist.
St. Augustine is not the sole authority on Catholic teachings. Even the brightest of minds can sometimes be in error, or perhaps misinterpret or mistranslate a document. I am no scholar, however. It appears that there are others who have responded with far greater knowledge than I.
A supremely valid question, Ottofire! You'd think the ECF were uniform in their doctrine, externally (between each other) if not internally (within their own writings), but history shows us this isn't so. What standard is used to "cherry pick" the correct material from among them?
If you're not really interested I suggest you give up trolling for another hobby.
Bah! Formatting is for wusses!
(thanks)
What the hey. GRPL ping
That's ironic - a Protestant commenting on uniformity of doctrine.
The only uniformity of doctrine that matters in Catholicism involves the magisterium in Rome, not the ECF. Whatever road a doctrine takes to get to Rome, whether it's been debated, debased, accepted, celebrated, or debunked in the process, if Rome declares it so, it is so. Aquinas did not believe the Immaculate Conception was tenable. He was wrong. The writings of the ECF can only support, not prove a doctrine. On the other hand, the writings of the ECF show clear proof of what Christians believed as contemporaries of the biblical authors themselves.
--You are clearly confused. I suggest you read about the Magisterium and the role revelation across history plays in the Church's teaching.
Well, I am confused. Since the Bible is only to be read from the Roman Churches teaching, why is it the Bible has yet to be completely interpreted for me?
If the Roman Church only wants to cherry pick which verses, (not entire books, or entire chapters, but only single verses) it wants to interpret and cherry pick writings from the Early Church Fathers, it is not making a great case for its claim to be an authority.
If the Supreme Court only stuck to ruling in only a tiny range of legal matters (verses), they would be considered delinquent in their duty. The Magisterium, having only interpreted the Scriptures which stressed its claimed authority, also can be found lacking in doing the duty they claim. It seems to have shirked all but the claim to power, showing its worldliness, not its claimed inspiration.
What "Dr." White fails to grasp is that the documentarians who made this steaming pile began with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to prove their point, i.e., there is no mention of a "Jesus tomb" anywhere in history. The Catholic Church doesn't have this problem since we know that Peter existed, was the Bishop of Rome, and was declared the "rock" by Jesus, Himself. The writings of the Church Fathers are further proof that authority belonged to Peter and his successors, and no one else. There are no other competing "authorities" anywhere in the formative years of the Church unless you count the dust-up with Arius that resulted in the illegitimate Pope Felix being installed in the fourth century. The proper term "Catholic" came into use by the Egyptian monastics under St. Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria) because he unbendingly pledged his allegiance to Pope Julius when Felix was installed by Constantine. They took on this identity because the rest of the Church universally accepted the successor to Peter as its head, in spite of the Arian heretics.
That is a strange objection. Protestants complain that Rome leaves them no freedom in understanding Scripture, and now you're complaining that Rome does leave some freedom to her children in understanding Scripture. There would appear to be no way to satisfy you.
Which Protestant church claims to have interpreted the entire Bible? And if one did, how many days would pass before they would have to change their mind, and change their interpretation?
The ability and authority to infallibly settle doctrinal disputes does not imply the obligation to infallibly settle every doctrinal dispute, and it certainly doesn't imply the ability to infallibly anticipate and settle doctrinal disputes which haven't occurred yet.
That ability didn't exist on the day of Pentecost, either. Why aren't you asking why the Apostles didn't infallibly interpret every verse of Scripture?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.