Tom,
Thanks for getting back to me on this. I would like to continue the conversation if you don't mind?
The Catholic Church does not have a specified scheme for interpreting the Scriptures. Some parts are literal, others metaphorical, others symbolic or allegorical, etc. Catholics believe that the correct way of interpreting the Old Testament was given to the apostles (compare Luke 24:27, 45) and passed down along with Scripture itself, included as a part of Sacred Tradition. The New Testament was written within the context of a fully functioning church, so it would have been understood perfectly by those who received it, and those understandings were also passed down. Nobody really questioned that perspective until the Reformation.
Without some authoritative guide like to Scripture interpretation, you get exactly what you see among the Protestants: a multitude of attempts to get to "the real truth" without any way to authoritatively choose between them.
In addition, Catholics believe that although the faith was complete by the end of the apostolic era, some passages of Scripture have multiple layers of meaning, which become clearer with time. Never does the new meaning replace the old, but rather supplements it. As an example, the text "out of Egypt I called my son" originally applied to the Exodus, but Matthew applies it to Jesus going down into Egypt. The new meaning did not replace, but rather supplemented the old. So rather than a "black and white" perspective, most Catholics who take an interest in this sort of thing have the "both...and" perspective. It means both this and that. Much of life is that way, anyway.
From what you wrote above I believe you are basing a lot of your faith in the Catholic interpretation on teachings being handed down faithfully. Would that be a fair assesment? I know you have said you have read the Early Church Fathers writings quite a bit so I assume you use that as a basis for that belief. I personally have only read a little from those writings online. I have ordered the 'dictionary' you talked about that your friend published. Hopefully it will be of some help since the writings of the early church fathers seem to be quite extensive.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the first part. The miracles show that Christ had divine power, and helped substantiate his claims to be the true Son of God. They were really miracles, not just illusions.
As for the understanding of the interrelationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the formal statement of the doctrine is was arrived a bishops in council. Their method is explained by Henry R. Percival:
[begin quote] The question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from a priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect — to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been entrusted to me to hand down to others? [end quote]
Your answer seems to tell me you personally take the miracles literally. What about stories of others who had powers from the same time period such as Honi the Circle Drawer or Hanina ben Dosa? I would like to ask how you would explain the pagan myths having many of the same stories in them? I realize not every myth is exactly the same as the stories of Jesus but enough of them are the same to cause me trouble believing these things ever did actually take place. Still, even if they didn't happen exactly as stated I see no reason to ignore them. I have read writings of Episcopalian writers (such as Marcus Borg) who make a great case for taking them metaphorically and I can still get benefit from that way of looking at it. Again I ask, would I be able to take some of those writings in a metaphorical way and still be Catholic?
Amen, brother. Evidence convinced me that the Catholic Church has preserved the faith handed down by the apostles. I also believe that these teachings have been miraculously preserved, protected against the tendency of sinful humans to screw with things, and change them, inadvertently or on purpose.
There are relatively few core teachings (dogmas) in the Catholic faith, only a handful, really. Bishops (or the apostles themselves) have defined them all.(The first example of that was when the bishops in Jerusalem affirmed in council that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be Christians.) Theologians have reasoned and enlarged on them, but no teaching of theologians is binding unless the bishops, in council, affirms it to be true, and those occasions are few and far between.
Unlike the situation in the WTS, Catholics are, from a practical perspective, free to accept or reject Catholic teaching, for there is little or no enforcement as to believing them (or doing anything else the Church teaches, either.) Sadly, many Catholics, including clergy, do not study the teachings of the church, or if they do, they may reserve the right to either believe and act on them or not.
To me the question boils down to this: If someone believes the teachings of the Church to be the teachings of Christ, then any truth-lover would, it would seem to me, want to learn and live by them. (Am I missing something here?) If a person (including any Catholic) is not convinced that they are true, then they will not live by them if doing so inconveniences them or costs them anything. Why would they? If they are true, they are a description of reality, what actually exists. If not, then what difference does it make anyway?
What would these core dogmas be? Or where could I read about them? Even being pretty much agnostic (although I am coming to more of a belief in God) myself I still try and follow teachings of Jesus and Ghandi, and Buddha...
There is room for multiple views on multiple subjects, except for the dogmas. Those key doctrines are mainly in the Creeds (like the Apostles' Creed). But there are also numerous wonderful spiritual and theological writings which are primarily used to build up one's faith. But there are many approaches to spirituality, and the Catholic church has room for them all, as long as they are not contrary to the faith handed down from the apostles.
But even if a Catholic chooses to ignore Church teaching, there is little or no policing, just encouragement to return. Even excommunication is mainly self-enforced. If a Catholic is living in adultery, for example, he or she usually knows that they should not take the communion. But they can go to just about any Catholic church and take it anyway if they so choose. According to Catholic teaching, by doing that they drink judgment on themselves. But if they don't believe Catholic teaching about adultery, why should they believe the teaching about communion? Or maybe they believe that Christ wasn't serious when he told his disciples to teach new converts 'to obey all the things he had commanded them.' The only thing they risk is that, if the Catholic church was teaching the truth all along, they may have to explain to Jesus after they die why they didn't obey his teachings, when he said that those who love him would do that.
How are people dealt with who commit a sin like say, commit adultery (from your example above) but want to change, perhaps they have been damaged by abuse or so forth? Also, what happens to those who come foward with abuse allegations?
Catholics believe that God is the Creator of all that exists. What means he used to create is not given to us. He could have created them in one 24-hour day or over millions of years, through guided or unguided evolution or any other means. We have no revelation about the precise means he used, only that he was the Great First Cause of its occurring.
Humans are unique creatures in that we have a spiritual soul and a physical body. God created a soul for Adam and Eve, and at conception, God creates a soul for each new person. That is a teaching of the Church, and is absolutely unverifiable by science. So there is no conflict. So whether the bodies of Adam and Eve evolved or not, that has no effect whatsoever on the doctrine of creation as understood by informed Catholics.
That's cool. I do have a brother-in-law who is Catholic who believes in evolution and has a B.A. in Biology (so does his Dad who is a science teacher). He also takes the miracles of Jesus metaphorically but I am not sure if he tells his church this. Just curious, when you say Adam and Eve, do you mean that metaphorically or literally? So, would you say that Jesus taught the idea of a soul to his apostles who handed that teaching down and where does the bible say that? Or do the Early Church Fathers writings say that somewhere?
Again, I thank you for taking the time to chat a bit.
