Bav,
Here are some ideas for you. You wrote...
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 assessment? 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.
Reading the early Christian writings is not necessary at all to become a Catholic. In fact, I don’t usually recommend it. It just happened to be the way I came to the Church. There are much faster ways to come to grips with Catholic teaching. But I was so anti-Catholic, I doubt I would have read the modern ones. I sort of “came in the back door.” One can read the Catechism or other materials without having to wade through the early Christian writings. But they are helpful if, like me, you needed reassurance that any of the core Catholic teachings were not just made up somewhere between the first century and today.
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?
There is no doubt that many other people besides Jesus have done miracles. But Jesus’ miracles were unusual first in that they were exactly what had been predicted for the Jewish Messiah to do. And of course the greatest miracle was his own rising from the dead. But they also have meanings beyond the actual miracle itself. For example, his healing of a man born blind was remarkable, but it pointed to the greater miracle, healing spiritual blindness. Not only could the man see literally, he could "see" that Jesus was the Messiah, even when the Pharisees could not. An important part of Catholic theology is that things are often signs. They point to hidden truths.
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.
Catholics love myths. Probably the most well-known Catholic myth is the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. (Tolkein was a devout Catholic.) A myth is a story that deals with great issues. It is etiological, dealing with the causes of things rather than simple historical facts, like out of a newspaper. But this is not an issue that can be explored in a few sentences. A wonderful book that deals with the very issue you raise is G. K. Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man". It was the book that influenced C. S. Lewis, an avowed but honest atheist, to become a Christian.
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?
Of course. Rather than this or that, Catholics are more likely to view things as this and that. Many passages of Scripture have multiple meanings, on many levels. Since there are no dogmas regarding the interpretations of the parables, you are free to see any meaning in them that you want to. They are parables, after all, meant to communicate truths on many levels.
What would these core dogmas be? Or where could I read about them?
You can download a list of them here: holyjoe.org/dogmas.doc If you are the scholarly type, you can buy Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" It gives a lot more detail, and also defines some widely held teachings that are not dogmatic.
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...
Catholic scholars, philosophers and mystics respect all the great teachers and gurus of the world. Unlike fundamentalists, Catholics believe that all people are God's children, not simply by reason of being descendants of one first human pair, but that God loves them all. He reveals truth to any who ask him. That is why the earliest Christians accepted some of the ideas first expressed by pagan philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. But they distinguish from among the various teachings of these philosphers those that fit properly with Christian teaching and those that do not. The OT does not talk about a separate soul, but Jesus did, and some of what Plato taught dovetails perfectly with what Jesus taught. So the early Christians used Platonic speech to communicate these ideas to Greeks and Romans who did not regard the Hebrew Scriptures to be authoritative at all. That is why Paul did not quote from the OT when he talked to the Greeks in Athens.
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?
Every sin can be forgiven, period. The only requirement is that it be confessed to a priest and that the sinner be sincerely repentant (and there is no fooling God about that, of course). Priests are bound never to reveal something that has been confessed to them. The punishment for doing so is immediate permanent excommunication and defrocking. There are many stories about priests who had a criminal confess to them, and the priest has gone to prison rather than reveal the confession. Nor can a priest refuse absolution or make it conditional (like if you committed a murder, he could not say "First you must turn yourself in to the police, then I will grant absolution.") Priests can and will give you advice. They may and often do recommend that you get help, counseling or the like. But he can not make absolution conditional on your following his advice, nor can he reveal what you have told him in the confessional to anyone, ever.
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?
Your brother in law can take them any way he wants to. Presumably, he would want them to be true at some level, but Catholics view truth very differently than do fundamentalists. A poem or a piece of art can be true in a very different way than court testimony at a murder trial.
"Do not fear those who can kill the body but not the soul." Early Christians taught the immortality of the soul, widely and early, and there is no hint of anyone, anywhere, upset over the introduction of "new" doctrine. Just to show how significant that is, in the eleventh century, the Eastern and Western church split over whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, or from the Father only. That is how carefully they were watching the details of doctrine.
Adam and Eve are to be viewed "historically", even if one believes that God used evolution to produce their bodies, over millions of years, then one fine day created a spiritual soul for a male and female, by which act they suddenly were made "in his image". Most Catholics do not try to fit events prior to Abraham into a time line, in keeping with the practice among the ancient peoples, who viewed truth about things like dates a bit differently from the way Greek-influenced Westerners do.
Hope this is of help to you. Now I have to go to bed. :-)
Tom
Tom Cabeen
JoinedPosts by Tom Cabeen
-
21
Catholic ex-JW's? Interpretation Questions for You.
by bavman inin view of the much publicized conversion of tom cabeen on this website i thought i would ask a couple of questions.. do all catholics interpret the scriptures literally or do they allow for metaphorical interpretation?
such as the miracles of jesus or the trinity understanding itself.
i seem to see a difference between some believers and especially between certain traditions within the church itself.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
-
8
Tom Cabeen on EWTN's Journey Home tonight. I enjoyed it.
by Seeker4 inwatched tom tonight, and thought he made some excellent points.
i called, and actually got through, but the producer didn't put me on.
i wanted to ask tom if his leaving bethel in 1980 had any connection with the whole ray franz/ed dunlap incident,which was happening then.. as tom knows, i'm one of those ex-jws who became an atheist, so i took quite a different path than he did in leaving the jws, and i certainly don't agree with his conclusions.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Grace,
First of all, Happy Birthday! I wish you many long and happy years, with good health and peace!
In answer to your question, I do not consider bowing before someone or kissing them to be worship or a form of idolatry. I kiss my wife, my kids and close friends, but I do not worship them. I also often bow to honor people, even to audiences when I sing in a concert. I rise when a judge enters a courtroom. I find it nice to have ways to show honor to people whom I respect. I have never considered any such things to be worship.
Best regards, my sister!
Tom -
8
Tom Cabeen on EWTN's Journey Home tonight. I enjoyed it.
by Seeker4 inwatched tom tonight, and thought he made some excellent points.
i called, and actually got through, but the producer didn't put me on.
i wanted to ask tom if his leaving bethel in 1980 had any connection with the whole ray franz/ed dunlap incident,which was happening then.. as tom knows, i'm one of those ex-jws who became an atheist, so i took quite a different path than he did in leaving the jws, and i certainly don't agree with his conclusions.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi S4,
I was at Bethel at the time but was not disfellowshipped then. Although I had close connections with Franz and Dunlap, evidently no one testified against me. I knew them both well, though (still know Ray, Ed died a few years ago). In fact, I knew all the people who were disfellowshipped at the time. Most were close personal friends. We left Bethel in June of 1980 and tried to slip away unnoticed, but were ultimately unable to do so.
In 1982, the elders of the Lancaster, PA congregation (where we had moved) called me into a meeting. It was not a judicial hearing, they said. There were no charges filed, and no witnesses to any wrongdoing. They just wanted some information. They asked if I had any doubts about WT teaching. I said that to my knowledge, all thinking people had doubts about something. I always had and probably always would. They were on a fishing expedition, so they questioned me for about an hour and a half, but since they had no idea what "apostate" concepts had been bandied about at Bethel, they had no idea what to ask, and I wasn't about to help them by volunteering anything. The meeting ended with nothing resolved. By that weekend everyone in the congregation knew we were "doubters". (One of the elders' wives had told my brother-in-law's wife about it, and I presume that others had gossiped as well.)
The elders called us into another meeting about two weeks later. Since it had become "common knowledge" that I had doubts, they had to take action. I said that prior to the meeting no one had any idea that we had any doubts, so they must have been responsible for that. They said it was not their concern how it came to be common knowledge, now that it was, they had no choice but to take action. They asked me if my (unspecified) doubts had been resolved. I replied that nothing had changed in the past two weeks, why should it? The meeting ended after five or ten minutes. On the way out of the room, the presiding elder turned and asked my wife if she agreed with me about most religious matters. She replied "Yes". (They had not asked her even one other question at either of the two meetings.) So they left, and returned. They said we had left them with "no choice" but to disfellowship both of us.
That was the end of our JW career. We went out for pizza and beer after the meeting. They did not join us.
Regarding the show, thanks for your positive comments. I guess I was glad to be able to show viewers that I have no hatred or bitterness toward my former companions in my life's journey. I also wished the questions had been more about my journey, rather than about what JWs believe and why. BTW, if you ever decide to revisit your choice to be atheists, let me know. We could have some lively discussions.
Tom -
9
Fred Franz' Anti-Governing Body Gilead Talk...Help, Please...
by Confession infor those of you familiar with the talk mentioned in my title, i'd like a bit of help understanding what franz was trying to convey.
yes, i know it seems to have been as a result of the ongoing discussions about whether or not to take full control of the wts away from the president and give it to the governing body.
but i'm still not sure how he thought his points were doing that.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Con,
He saw power in the first century, but not vested in a committee-like arrangement. Evidently, Freddie saw himself and NHK as like the apostle Paul (free to do whatever he wanted without getting permission from the other apostles). In the WT scheme of things, the "other apostles" would be the rest of the "remnant". He didn't want to have to run his talks and articles past a board for approval prior to publication, which might happen if the GB committees went through. I doubt that he ever did that, but things did change to some extent for him after the GB committees. NHK died shortly thereafter (1976, as I recall) and that may have seemed to some as a confirmation that the GB changes were just in time.
Tom -
9
Fred Franz' Anti-Governing Body Gilead Talk...Help, Please...
by Confession infor those of you familiar with the talk mentioned in my title, i'd like a bit of help understanding what franz was trying to convey.
yes, i know it seems to have been as a result of the ongoing discussions about whether or not to take full control of the wts away from the president and give it to the governing body.
but i'm still not sure how he thought his points were doing that.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hey, Con,
Freddy (Franz) gave that famous/infamous talk during the time that the newly-formed governing body were talking about how the Society ought to be governed, prior to the forming of the committees in 1975. Discussions among them were hot and heavy. Most wanted to divide the power of the presidency (N H Knorr) among them, but Knorr and Franz, the pres and vice pres, were dead set against it. In the midst of it all, Freddy gave that talk to prove that in the first century, there was no such thing as a governing body, nor any centralized authority. The apostles did whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted to, moved only by the holy spirit. He was using his "bully pulpit" to present his own idea of how the WTB&TS ought to be governed.
Eventually, the other guys outvoted him, though, and after the governing body committees were formed, articles began to come out in the publications showing how there really was a centralized governing body in the first century (just like the one in Brooklyn, don't ya know) where new doctrines were decided and passed down through written materials to all the congregations.
I was at that Gilead graduation (sometime in 1974, as I recall) when Freddie gave that talk. I was quite impressed by his reasoning. Perhaps that was one factor that eventually made me reject the whole JW "find a proof text to prove this week's new light" approach to understanding Scripture.
Tom -
47
Wrote a letter to the Catholic Chruch.
by Blueblades init was 1969 when i answered that first knock.
1970 when i got baptized.
it was suggested that i write a letter to the catholic chruch where i was baptized and disavow my baptism,that i no longer considered myself a catholic.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Blue,
No, I don't think Jesus has ever made himself known to me without ambiguity. That would be too easy, and would not require faith on my part. I think the biggest component for building my faith is communication with other people. I love people. I love to talk to them or read what they have written down about what they believe and why. I think that is what drew me to the writings of the early Christians. Many of their writings just tell how they came to faith, what obstacles they overcame, what they found that they were willing to die for.
You should be aware of a very significant factor at work in many former JWs. It is the negativity with which we were trained to think as JWs. I posted what follows a few days ago on another thread, but you might not have seen it.
Many years ago, I ran across a quote which made a deep impression on me. I printed it out and it hung on my wall for several years. It is from Solomon ibn Gabirol, a Jewish rabbi who lived about a thousand years ago and had a good deal of influence on the Christians of his day. He said:
"A fool rejoices when he discovers error; a wise man rejoices when he discovers truth."
This quote impressed me. It conjured up in my mind a mental picture of the method so many use to analyze things. They seem to start by saying "I was tricked once; it won't happen again." Then they spend a lot of time trying to discover just where something doesn't fit, where the loophole or falsehood is. Every time they find something "wrong", they congratulate themselves on seeing through another lie. There is so little to be gained in proportion to the effort expended from that type of endeavor.
If they would invest the same amount of effort in becoming informed about things that can be verified to a reasonable degree, then each thing they would learn would contribute toward building a more correct model of reality, which is what truth is. You gain something you can live by each and every time you do it. It doesn't have to be about religion. I studied physics, astronomy, art, music and a host of other things; anything that caught my eye. After awhile, I began to feel much more reassured that the universe was really designed, that ultimately everything did fit together. It gave me the confidence to reexamine religion with a new perspective, finding truth.
I resolved to take Solomon ibn Gabirol's advice to heart. The result has made me so much happier than I was when I was looking for error.
I wish you success, bro.
Tom -
47
Wrote a letter to the Catholic Chruch.
by Blueblades init was 1969 when i answered that first knock.
1970 when i got baptized.
it was suggested that i write a letter to the catholic chruch where i was baptized and disavow my baptism,that i no longer considered myself a catholic.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Blue,
I am sorry you lost your faith, but it happens to many former JWs. My heart aches for them.
Faith is a conscious act of will, a response you make after using your intellect to examine evidence, a decision you make to believe something beyond the evidence, but toward which the evidence points. As time goes by, your perspective may change, you may come to see some new evidence (or the same old evidence in a new way) that there is a God who has not only communicated with us, but who loves us as his children and wants to share his divine life with us.
Sixty-three once seemed ancient to me, but now I see it more along the lines of middle age (I am 58). A lot of water may have gone under the bridge, but I believe there is still plenty of water up the river.
If you ever want to reopen your investigation, I would be more than happy to share with you the basis for my faith. But if not, you are still my brother, and I wish you peace.
Best regards,
Tom -
21
Catholic ex-JW's? Interpretation Questions for You.
by bavman inin view of the much publicized conversion of tom cabeen on this website i thought i would ask a couple of questions.. do all catholics interpret the scriptures literally or do they allow for metaphorical interpretation?
such as the miracles of jesus or the trinity understanding itself.
i seem to see a difference between some believers and especially between certain traditions within the church itself.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Bav,
You ask: "Do all Catholics interpret the scriptures literally or do they allow for metaphorical interpretation?"
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.
"...Such as the miracles of Jesus or the Trinity understanding itself." 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]
"I seem to see a difference between some believers and especially between certain traditions within the church itself. Also, between what some priests say and what some of the deep thinkers have written."
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?
"Is there room for both views within the Catholic church?"
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.
Also, is evolution compatible with Catholic belief?
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.
Tom -
47
Wrote a letter to the Catholic Chruch.
by Blueblades init was 1969 when i answered that first knock.
1970 when i got baptized.
it was suggested that i write a letter to the catholic chruch where i was baptized and disavow my baptism,that i no longer considered myself a catholic.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Dove,
As a general rule, yes. According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter (it must be done with water), the form (using the Trinitarian formula from Matthew 28), the intention of the minister (the baptizer must mean to baptize you), and the right disposition of the recipient (you must want to be baptized, or someone in charge of you like a parent or relative wants to have you baptized.
Most baptisms performed in Christian churches of all denominations meet those four qualifications. More info here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/mormbap1.htm It's about Mormons, but you can easily see how the thinking goes if you read it.
Since Jesus Christ is actually the one who actually administers the sacrament of baptism (he accomplishes the change in your soul that occurs when you are baptized) the earthly baptist only needs to follow Jesus' instructions. Jesus does the rest. So whether or not your name is on some list somewhere is completely irrelevant. Jesus knows who he has cleansed from sin, and he never forgets.
Tom -
47
Wrote a letter to the Catholic Chruch.
by Blueblades init was 1969 when i answered that first knock.
1970 when i got baptized.
it was suggested that i write a letter to the catholic chruch where i was baptized and disavow my baptism,that i no longer considered myself a catholic.
-
-
Tom Cabeen
Hi Cas,
Of course, anyone could walk into a Catholic Church, claim to be baptized, show some sort of forged documents, and go through the motions of being "reconciled" to the church. (In our case, the priest asked for documentation that my wife and I had been baptized. She had been baptized a Catholic, I was baptized a Methodist. We contacted the churches, who had records of both our baptisms.)
And you could most likely get away with it, at least until you die and meet up with the one who know everything. Then, Lucy, you might have some 'splainin' to do. But hey, God might just laugh and say "Come on in, you clever dog!" :-)
Tom