Are Catholics considered Christian??? - Page 5

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
So just let me get this straight. All of the above, reclaiming the "saints," the spears, banners, smashed gates, comes from this:

No, not quite straight. All of the above doesn't come from that one verse in the Bible. All of the above comes from the Descent of Christ into Hell, held by orthodox Christians as doctrine from apostolic times. The orthodox interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 differs from yours. See also Acts 2:24. But a bigger point is, it doen't have to be explicitly taught in the Bible to be a true doctrine, unless you hold to sola scriptura. (For that matter, I think even Luther believed in the Descent into Hell, though you might have a better argument against him, since he did espouse sola scriptura.)

Is this harrowing in some Apocryphal reference? Yes, it is. Acta Pliati (Acts of Pilate) aka the Gospel of Nicodemus.

Yup. But that isn't the source of the doctrine, which predates the Acta Pilati. That work, by the way, is apocryphal, in the sense that all writing that isn't Scripture is apocryphal. What I'm writing now is apocryphal. It means it is not infallibly inspired by God, and may therefore contain error. But Acta Pilati isn't a bad piece of writing, and contains no heretical teaching, just some fictional embellishments on the Gospel truth, a lot like Mel Gibson's apocryphal movie.

The iconography with smashed gates, spears, and so forth is metaphorical, teaching cosmic truths with physical analogues. If you were an eyewitness to the actual Harrowing of Hell, you would have seen.... nothing. Absolutely nothing. Incorporeal spirits can't be seen by eyes.

Does one learn about the origins of the belief in Purgatory and the harrowing of hell in those RCIA classes I hear of?

I sure hope so.

Off to read Nicodemus.

Cool. I hope I haven't spoiled it by giving away the ending.

[DaryLLL]

So what is the source of the doctrine that predates Acta Pilati? Is it another document or imagined oral traditions?

I read some of it just now. It was written by a couple of guys who were sons of the Simon who held Jesus when he was born. They were raised up out of the grave when Jesus died on the cross. It says Satan killed Christ, prepared the cross, nails, and gall and vinegar even. Is this Catholic teaching? Why have we been saying all sinners killed Christ by their sins (and some still believe it was the Jews)? Was it God's plan, who ordered Satan to carry it out?

The Acta also says Hades (a person) now has Satan in his clutches, torturing him forever.

If apocrypha is fallible, how can it inspire infallible doctine like the "harrowing" of Hades' abode? Or is the belief in Purgatory and Jesus rescuing the souls of the patriarchs and prophets considered just an idea that may or may not be true, as it is based on fallible apocrypha? :

I bet Sean will have some answers, and I wish a couple other Catholics would give their impressions as well. Surely this is all taught in Catechism class?

[Elzabet]

I'm not going to try to answer your questions as Sean is doing a much better job than I could but I need to ask something. Why must oral traditions be imagined? Are all oral traditions imagined or just Christian/Catholic ones? I can accept that some might be but the implication that oral tradition is imagined (that is a story, to put it nicely) makes it seem that they are therefore not worthy of consideration.

[DaryLLL]

Eazabet,
Not at all. If an oral tradition be not written down, I would need to have someone tell it to me to have it become real. Or hear a recording of it. An oral tradtion may exist, but until someone tells me it or writes it down (as the Jew did with their "Oral Torah" after the destruction and harrowing of Jerusalem for ex), it exists only in my imagination.

Sean said some "source" about the harrowing of Hades predates the Acta Pilati and I imagined it was an oral trad, as the Acta is pretty early, perhaps 4th century?

As far as an oral tradition being a story, well, it's all stories. Whether thought to be God-inspired (infallible) or just fiction. The Catholic Church itself insists even the canon is not meant to be taken as accurate history, but as a story about Christ's mission with a theological teaching. Sean said the Acta we are considering is fiction:

It means it is not infallibly inspired by God, and may therefore contain error. But Acta Pilati isn't a bad piece of writing, and contains no heretical teaching, just some fictional embellishments on the Gospel truth.

In other words, it is orthodox, not gnostic, but may or may not be truly factual.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Elzabet
Why must oral traditions be imagined? Are all oral traditions imagined or just Christian/Catholic ones?

Excellent question, Beth! I was curious about that myself.

DaryLLL, you can read Adversus Haereses by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Book V, Ch. 31 to see that the Harrowing of Hell was already doctrine as of the writing of that document (between 180-199 A.D.), predating the Acta Pilati by over a hundred years. Now, Irenaeus isn't the source of the Harrowing either. It is quite clear that he is citing it as settled doctrine among orthodox Christians, and putting forth arguments in its favor to persuade heretics. So what was Ireneus's source? He was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. These facts are not in dispute. The Tradition from John to Irenaeus may have been oral, or it may have been written but lost to us since. Either way, you have no basis to allege that it was imaginary.

[DaryLLL]

Thanks Sean.

Actually, I will not debate, but just mention "these facts" are, indeed, in dispute in scholarly circles.

[Sean]

You're right, I was speaking too broadly. Or too narrowly. Or something. I guess there are no facts which aren't disputed by somebody, somewhere. There are even scholarly sorts who dispute all facts, saying "fact" is a meaningless concept with no basis in "fact." Or something. I shall try to use words even more precisely henceforth. Thanks for not debating.

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
As far as an oral tradition being a story, well, it's all stories.

didn't we just go through this discussion on another thread? it's *all* oral tradition. the fact that somebody, at some point, chiseled it into rock or inked it onto an animal hide doesn't change the fact that everything in the Abrahamic tradition is oral. even "historical" accounts of Jesus are ultimately oral because they are premised on a prophetic tradition that is, well, oral. one cannot read the bible in its native form without coming at it with millenia of oral tradition.

and since no tradition has an infallible document listing the canon, the best we can say about the infallibility of any of the stuff is that we have a "fallible list of infallible writings" - which is a pretty interesting statement if you think about it.

it is not correct to say the "descent into hell" is an "early" c'ian belief because the story predates c'ianity by at least several hundred years.

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by dado

it is not correct to say the "descent into hell" is an "early" c'ian belief because the story predates c'ianity by at least several hundred years.

OK, I'll bite. Greek, Jewish, Persian or what? And by whom?

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
OK, I'll bite. Greek, Jewish, Persian or what? And by whom?

it's another of your universal stories. everybody from Krishna...

…went down to hell to preach to the inmates of that dark and dreary prison, with the view of reforming them, and getting them back to heaven, and was willing himself to suffer to abridge the period of their torment.

...to Quexalcoatl(!).

it makes sense, right? if the resurrection story is universal - which it clearly is - it doesn't take much imagination to fill in the "dead days" with a trip to where the dead hang out. it's hard to imagine what else they *could* do.

[Sean]

Dado:

You are right that all Christian Tradition is, at its source, oral. Could hardly be otherwise, since Christ left no writings, only oral teachings. You're also right that the Descent into Hell is a common story in several pre-Christian religions, and for pretty much the reason you cited: it's a really good story!

Your observation that the Bible is a "fallible list of infallible documents" is exactly what sola scriptura Protestants believe. (At least, that's exactly what Scott Hahn said his Protestant pastor taught him in Rome Sweet Home. I Googled the phrase, and got no hits.) At any rate, it is the logical deduction from the sola scriptura doctrine.

But Catholics believe that one "tradition has an infallible document listing the canon." Naturally, it's their own. The canon of Scripture was fixed in its current form by Pope Damasus I in 374 (it's sometimes called the "Damasan Canon" for that reason). Even so, it was not defined infallibly until the Council of Trent did so in 1546. Ever since that date, Catholics have what they believe to be an infallible list of infallible documents.

EDITING TO ADD: I found out the precise wording Protestants use is "fallible collection of infallible books." Do a Google search for "fallible collection of infallible books" and you get quite a few discussions of this issue, from both sides.

[urklemama]

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but an important thing to keep in mind in discussions like this one is how very recent our level of literacy is. Most people who considered themselves to be Christians for most of history could not read or write at any meaningful level. How do you convert the illiterate? And even more to the point, how do the quasi-literate convert the illiterate? Not by sola scriptura, that's for sure. The whole concept of bringing every point of Christian belief back to something you can find in a text is a post-Reformation, post-printing press concept. It only makes sense in the context of both near-universal literacy and near universal availability of the sacred texts.

[DaryLLL]

That is why we have had temples, synagogues, and churches. So those with learning could preach the message to the illiterate. Paintings and statues and stained glass also serve in this purpose as teaching tools.

Unfortunately, even now, when most of the Western world is literate, they still don't really read and understand their texts. Too unintelligent and lazy.

What percentage of "Christians" in this country have actually read the entire Book front to back, and sought different ways to make sense of its esoteric code?

[Sean]

Every now and again the Gallup organization polls Americans about not just religious profession (What religion do you say you believe?) but also religious knowledge (Have you read the Bible? Who preached the Sermon on the Mount?). The results are always pretty much in accord with DaryLLL's worst fears. In 1997, George Gallup said, "The stark fact is, most Americans don't know what they believe or why." I can't access the actual poll results on Gallup.com, because they're "subscriber only" pages. But I got some of the results from reports in the news media.

80 percent of Americans believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

20 percent of Americans have read the whole Bible.

17 percent of Americans read the Bible daily.

50 percent of Americans read the Bible rarely, or never.
Of those: 59 percent said they "didn't have time," and 40 percent said the Bible was "too hard to understand."

[Elzabet]

Agreed. Sometimes I can have better conversations about Christianity with non-believers than with believers--in spite of having to go away and have a good scream afterward :LOL. It seems that most church-people are content with being bottle fed the "formulas" rather than desiring the true milk and meat of the Word (if I may mix my metaphors and verses and things).

That is why, btw, I have no problems with things like icons and statues and stained glass windows depicting the life of Jesus and the saints. At the very least they spark the imagination. At most Iwould hope they make one think deeply about what they represent.

I've always thought that if you didn't know why you believed what you do (or not) then what you believe is rather pointless because it doesn't mean enough to you for you to ask hard questions of it and expect answers whether they are to your satisfaction or not.

[DaryLLL]

Thanks for the stats, Sean.I know this is very OT, urklemama sending us down another rabbit hole... Actually I would question that 20% who claim to have read the entire Bible. Maybe they have read or heard a few verses preached about, but really read it all? They may say they have to save face or out of guilt.

My MIL who is a big fundie, told me recently she had never read the whole thing. She is about 70 yrs old and an ardent church goer, sunday and wednesday school goer too.

Yes, she thinks Gandhi and Mother Teresa are burning in hell as we speak. That New Agers have a big plan to wipe out all Xtianity inspired by a figure she imagines as Real called Satan.

Yet she never read the whole Bible straight thru, just in bits and pieces. So dangerous to take little verses out, out of context and get all het up about what they mean. Some kind of fear of annihilation usually.

So now she is finally reading it all, using some kind of computer plan that tells her how much to read each day...

[urklemama]

Usually you have to convert people before they will build the church. Not always, but usually. But I'll just pop back down the rabbit hole.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
... and get all het up about what they mean.

Would you believe, I have never before heard of anyone being "all het up" about anything? I thought maybe it was a typo, but I looked it up, and found that 'het' really is a dialectical variant of 'heated.' But it didn't say what dialect. Is it Southern? I want to start working it into my own conversations.

[spero]

Originally posted by Sean
Would you believe, I have never before heard of anyone being "all het up" about anything? I thought maybe it was a typo, but I looked it up, and found that 'het' really is a dialectical variant of 'heated.' But it didn't say what dialect. Is it Southern? I want to start working it into my own conversations.

I was thinking it was a New England thing - it's something my grandfather would have said

[barbara]

Thanks for the stats Sean. It is interesting that so many Christians have not read the Bible, which proves that it is really much more of an oral tradition/religion than one might think.

I'm no theologian, but I have read the Bible through several times in a couple of versions. My dh and and my teenagers have also, yet we have had many a 'discussion' with those who haven't read it, over verses they have taken completely out of context! :

I guess if one is going to claim the Bible as a foundation to their faith, they ought to have read it.