Who’s the #1 religious leader in the world?
The pope . . . of course.
Who’s the #2?
Well, probably the dalai lama.
There a bit of assymetry, though. The pope is the figurehead of Christianity, which is the world’s largest religion. The dalai lama is the most famous Buddhist leader, but depending on what you count as a religion, Buddhism is only the fourth to the sixth largest religion (after Islam and Hinduism, for example).
But the other major religions don’t have generally recognized figureheads, and so the dalai lama gets second billing alongside the pope, without comparable religious leaders in the picture.
The result is that the media treats the Dalai Lama as kind of "the Asian pope."
The assymetry goes a bit deeper than what I’ve indicated, though, since the position of the pope and the dalai lama are assymeterical within their respetive religions. The pope is the head of the Catholic Church, which the original Christian communion and by far the largest. The communion that the dalai lama heads, though, is neither the original nor the largest Buddhist communion. He is the most influential leader in the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism, though even then he is not its head (that would be the ganden tripa).
All of this assymetry encourages one to recognize the uniqueness of the pope as a religious leader, though that isn’t my point in writing.
I simply thought folks might be interested to read an interview (linked below) with the Dalai Lama and to know a little more about him since he makes such frequent appearances in the media.
The title "dalai lama" means something like "the ocean teacher" with the term "ocean" referring to the expansiveness of his teaching. The title is regarded as belonging to the successive reincarnations of a particular individual. The first dalai lama (though the title was not used in his day) was called Gedun Drub, who lived in the 1400s. The present dalai lama (Tenzin Gyatso) is the fourteenth dalai lama. (Dalai lamas have much longer reigns than popes since the office is a life-long one.)
When a dalai lama dies a search is conducted for his reincarnation, and this usually takes a few years. To help find the reincarnation, various children are shown personal belongings of the previous dalai lama, and if one of the children shows familiarity with these belongings, it is a sign that he may be the reincarnation.
To avoid disputes, the reincarnation of the dalai lama is officially recognized by another lama–known as the panchen lama. (Reciprocally, when the panchen lama dies, the dalai lama recognizes his reincarnation. The dalai lama also appoints the ganden tripa, which is a non-reincarnating office.)
At the moment there is a looming problem with the succession arrangements for the next dalai lama and that problem can be summed up in one word: China.
China took over Tibet when the current dalai lama was a teenager, and he has lived in exile in India for decades. It is probably this fact that accounts for much of the dalai lama’s recognition in the media. If China had never seized control of Tibet, he would just be the local major religious leader of Tibet, but the state of his country has projected him onto the world stage in a much more substantial way.
Now here’s the problem: The communist government of China has reserved to itself the approval of high-level reincarnations in Tibet (citing previous involvement by a Chinese emperor in the selection of the panchen lama).
After the takeover of Tibet, China put the previous panchen lama under house arrest for years and may have murdered him after he gave a speech critical of the communist government. His death led to a split in that the Chinese government now recognizes a different panchen lama than the dalai lama does.
Rather than be reincarnated in Chinese controlled territory, the dalai lama has also announced that he will be reborn in a free country, outside of Chinese control. He’s also suggested that he may not reincarnate at all.
This means that the stage is set for the coming of a false dalai lama–an Asian anti-pope, if you will. In the interview linked below, the present dalai lama states frankly:
As I’ve said earlier, whether this institution [of the dalai lama] will continue depends on the people. Under the best of circumstances, I think that the institution should continue. First, the maintenance of the institution is important. Then, there is the personal history. Both options should be kept open. If the Tibetan people want another reincarnation, then logically while we’re outside, the successor should be someone who can carry out this task, which has not yet been accomplished by the previous Dalai Lama. That means that he must come in a free country. But the Chinese government will also appoint a Dalai Lama. So there’ll be two Dalai Lamas. One Dalai Lama—the Chinese official Dalai Lama—the Tibetan people will have no faith in. Even the ordinary Chinese will have no faith in him. He’ll be a false Dalai Lama.
Another dimension of the problem is that the dalai lama is the head of the Tibetan government in exile, and China is deathly afraid that he or his successors could lead Tibet to attempt to separate from Chinese rule. In response the dalai lama has said that he is willing to renounce (including for his future incarnations) any political role in Tibet if it can have autonomy and freedom.
He is not shooting for independence, though. (That would send the Chinese government into orbit.) Instead, he is looking for something much more modest:
Meaningful autonomy. Autonomy is provided for in the Chinese constitution for minorities and special rights are guaranteed for Tibet. In communist states, sometimes the constitutions they write are not sincerely practiced. It’s a special sort of case with Tibet. It becomes possible to have one country, two systems. Why not? Let’s consider Tibet historically: Different language, different culture, different geographical location. So in order to get maximum satisfaction for the Tibetan people, I think a higher degree of autonomy should be given. Then Tibetan loyalty to the people of China will naturally come. Tibetans will enjoy true autonomy. That is the guarantee for preservation of our identity, our culture, our spirituality, our environment.
In Quebec in Canada, some politicians wanted independence, but when the people were asked, they saw that their greater interest, their greater benefit, was by staying within Canada. It’s similar with Scotland, also. Their high degree of autonomy within Great Britain gives them satisfaction. So giving a higher degree of autonomy brings no danger of separation.
It’s interesting reading the interview it the dalai lama, because on certain issues he seems to have a realistic understanding of the situation (e.g., the coming succession problem, the fact that some kind of autonomy but not full independence is all that can be hoped for at the moment). But on other issues he sounds completely unrealistic. (His suggestion that the U.S. should have had a non-violent response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, for example, was from outer space.)
One item that was of particular interest in the interview was an equivalent to the woment’s ordination issue. While women can theoretically attain the highest forms of ordination in the dalai lama’s sect, they have not yet achieved such ordinations in comparable numbers, and this is a source of discomfort.
In any event,
I wonder why they didn’t mention the Dalai Lama’s “very conservative position on gay marriage” like the MSM seems to do whenever they mention the pope.
Oh wait…
I saw the Barbara Walter’s special on Heaven with him on it, he seems to be a very nice, peaceful man. What irked me to no end was that the show kept refering to him as “His Holiness” Now, please correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t that title belong to the Vicar of Christ alone? Isn’t the “His” in the title refering directly to Christ? If so, the dali lama is being adressed with a title that is not meant for him.
Now, please correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t that title belong to the Vicar of Christ alone?
The Dalai Lama is also referred to as “His Holiness.” Of course Catholics do not believe in his office, but some non-believers also refer to the Pope as His Holiness so out of respect I don’t see anything wrong with the use of that honorific (Jimmy can correct me if I’m wrong). In any event, unless Barbara Walters is Catholic, that appears to be a moot point.
Isn’t the “His” in the title refering directly to Christ?
I don’t think so. If it were, why would you address the pope in the second person as “Your Holiness.” It works under the same principle as “His Majesty the King of England.”
Indeed, the Holy Roman Emperor used to, properly, refer to himself as “My Majesty.”
“If the Tibetan people want another reincarnation, then logically while we’re outside, the successor should be someone who can carry out this task…”
Not knowing too much about Buddhism, reincarnation — at least for the Dalai Lama — sounds like a democratic process of the Tibetan people.
oh, Okay. Thanks for the correction guys.
Pax tecum.
Would it be possible for the “incarnate” Dalai Lama to be a child born of Catholic parents? What a firestorm that would be!
When he says the next one may be born in a free country, was he also implying that person would still be ethnically Tibetan and Buddhist?
What if the Commie figurehead was Tibetan and Buddhist and the “true” Lama was a non-Tibetan of another religion? I think this would indeed cause all sorts of confusion among believers.
Along similar lines, what if the Mormon President converted to another religion? Would the Mormons be obliged to follow him?
I can remember that episode of the King of the Hill series in which a 10-year-old American boy was recognized as the new Dalai Lama. When the boy was in his bed, his father tried to make him renounce the office by imitating a ghost: “I am the true Dalai Lama, not you! Now cut out that Buddhist nonsense!”
“I wonder why they didn’t mention the Dalai Lama’s ‘very conservative position on gay marriage’ like the MSM seems to do whenever they mention the pope.” I agree and you know what, MSM called Benedict XVI a nazi. And that O’Conner girl burned up a picture of Pope Benedict XVI that is just scandalous. Those old communists at MSM. They make me so sick! Liberal America, I’m sick of you.
Most of the stories I read from the MSM about Benedict indicated that he was forced to join the Hitler Youth. I don’t recall a single story that called him a Nazi.
Microsoft beefs up push to small businesses
Reuters – Microsoft Corp. unveiled a new rebate and free service offer for its small business accounting software on Monday, aimed at luring customers away from rival Intuit Inc…
Just one small comment. Christianity is the largest religion in the world? Only if you cant every demonition as the same religion. I think quite a few people would be unhappy with that. Any Protestant would not want himself lumped in the same category as a Catholic, and for that matter neither would a Mormon (yes, we are Christians, see my previous posts – I argued based on the standard definition using what we actually beleive).
The brother of the Dalai Lama was a “resource” of the CIA and the CIA funded the Khamba tribesman out of India to fight the communist Chinese, without much success.
Dalai Lama did criticize homosexuality once as a mental problem and not spiritually pure and it shocked some of his Hollywood fans. Richard Gere is supposedly a real devotee.
I just wanted to say that I truly enjoyed this article. Jimmy Akin, you are a very talented writer. For the rest of the comments, GET A LIFE! Seriously, some of these arguments are just ridiculous! I mean, who cares if Barbra referred to him as “His Holiness”? He’s a religious leader. To the Tibetan people he is holy, and even if he’s not, who cares. As for Christianity being the largest religion in the world. First: I’m pretty sure Catholicism is either the largest or second largest religion by it’s self. Catholicism spans the glob from the United States to Europe and even Asia. Second: I don’t see the problem with grouping Catholics and protestants together. No matter the denomination, it’s still the same basic religion. Third: Mormonism is classified as a cult, not a religion, so they are not included in the grouping of Christianity.
I’m just wondering, what makes the pope the #1 religious leader in the world? what are the classifications of that, maybe who publicly worships the most? there is no #1 religious leader. And to Frank, Mormonism is NOT classified as a cult, it IS classified as a religion. Maybe not Christianity, but it is a religion.
My mistake, it was not Frank who said that. It was Steven E.
Well, just for the upside, when we call the pope “His Holiness” including the Dalai Lama, I believe its merely just us appointing them as a representative of Christ the Savior, or “The Christ”. Its actually a good thing to be calling them such things and at that, more than one person. What if, God forbid, that the Pope made a ‘mistake’ lets say, well, if he was the only representative, than we wouldn’t know it as a ‘mistake’ but because there are more than one high appointed religious leaders, than they have the right to point these out and to release the truth to us thus making the mistake clear for us. So honestly, a representative is what we need. The Dalai Lama is yes, a reincarnation showing Godly features, but the Pope is known for miracles, so that’s another Godly feature, which is what seems to confuse a lot of people between a representative of God and actually suiting to be him.
Do not forget, that is merely my straight out opinion. No argument is intended to arise from this.
If you do not include those who subscribe to certain heresies (for ex. Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons) as Christians then Christianity would not be the largest religion. If you went further and went along the lines of Albert Mohler and excluded those who did not agree with his narrow view of the “Virgin Birth” as Christians (in addition to all the other exclusions, named and unnamed), then quite possibly Christianity would not even be in the top two largest religions. But that should not concern the Christian. Christianity is not about the Church. Ralph Martin has something interesting things to say along these lines.
For the sake of clarity, I should point out that when I spoke earlier of the doctrine of the “virgin birth”, I should have said “virginal conception of Christ”, that is, the supernatural and miraculous nature of his conception, which involved no man, Mary having been “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit.
This does not touch at all on various understandings of Mary’s virginity in childbirth (the exact nature of which is not a matter of defined doctrine and is therefore an area on which Christians may legitimately disagree).
Tim, Albert Mohler is a Protestand and Baptist IIRC. So when I spoke of “Virgin Birth” in relation to Albert Mohler and his “narrow view” of it, I was not speaking of the controversies within Catholicism where some say certain matters pertaining to it are infallible doctrine whereas others say it is doctrine but not infallible and so forth. Albert Mohler, FWIW, does tend to be open to truth anywhere that he might see it and for example seems to be appreciative of some of the Catholic doctrine on contraception (though he is not in full agreement with it), but AFAIK he has not imbibed anything peculiarly Catholic as regards the “Virgin Birth.” When he speaks of the “Virgin Birth” and when other Protestants do, they mean only that no human male was biologically the father of Jesus. It is properly called the “Virgin Birth” since the virginity pertains to the origin of the birth, not the birth itself. Though, I agree it can be confusing (and IMO also misses the spiritual meaning of Mary’s virginity; as Vatican II taught all inspired truth in scripture is salvific in nature — so the fact of Mary’s virginity must be a truth that is salvific in nature and IMO thus in some way constitutive of or at least conducive to contemplation of God which contemplation per Origen is our salvation and the supernatural end of man.
(P.S. I don’t think you used the term “virgin birth” earlier)
Whatever layers of deeper, spiritual meaning may pertain to the Virgin Birth of Christ, it is the physical aspect of her virginity that is a matter of defined doctrine for Catholics, and therefore cannot be dismissed, spiritualized or in any way made optional without embracing heresy.
Tim, just to clarify again, when I spoke of how it was proper for Albert Mohler to speak of the “Virgin Birth” even though he doesn’t adhere to peculiarly Catholic doctrine pertaining to the birth itself, I wasn’t saying that that was the only proper way to use the term or that it was a use annointed ecclesially in some fashion … I was just speaking profanely in terms of the proper use of language.
Tim, I affirm that Mary was a virgin in both her body and soul, but just as different Christians have different understanding of what it means for Mary to be a virgin — bodily — as it relates to the birth of Christ*, I also have a different understanding from you in what it means for Mary to be a virgin — bodily — as it relates to coitus which you seem focused on. You may be aware of this but as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, in one traditional formulation of the concept of virginity, it excludes not only coitus but any complete and voluntary delection in sexual pleasure.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm
“Morally, virginity signifies the reverence for bodily integrity which is suggested by a virtuous motive. Thus understood, it is common to both sexes, and may exist in a women even after bodily violation committed upon her against her will. Physically, it implies a bodily integrity, visible evidence of which exists only in women. The Catholic Faith teaches us that God miraculously preserved this bodily integrity, in the Blessed Virgin Mary, even during and after her childbirth (see Paul IV, “Cum quorundam”, 7 August, 1555). There are two elements in virginity: the material element, that is to say, the absence, in the past and in the present, of all complete and voluntary delectation, whether from lust or from the lawful use of marriage; and the formal element, that is the firm resolution to abstain forever from sexual pleasure. It is to be remarked, on the one hand, that material virginity is not destroyed by every sin against the sixth or ninth commandment, and on the other hand that the resolution of virginity extends to more than the mere preservation of bodily integrity, for if it were restricted to material virginity, the resolution, at least outside the married state, might coexist with vicious desires, and could not then be virtuous.”
Note that in this formulation by the Catholic Encyclopedia that the spiritual meaning of virginity or in particular its formal element is highlighted. This formal element to virginity is not some “deep layer of meaning”; it is constitutive of virginity itself, virginity cannot exist without it. So though in modern culture someone who has never had coitus (nor engaged in other forms of fornication or masturbation) might be considered a “virgin”, properly speaking she wouldn’t be if she during this time did not possess the critical formal element of virginity, that element without which of course virginity could not be as Thomas teaches, a virtue. “Formal” here does not mean “formal versus informal” or “rigorous” or anything of the sort. Formal here more or less pertains to how virginity is constituted in the human heart itself and in such constitution is a virtue per Thomas.
I am not sure you know this but the church has admitted women who have had coitus to an order of “consecrated virgins.” Thus it would seem that the term virginity is aptly applied per ecclesial practice not crucially to those who possess the material or bodily integrity element proper to virginity but crucially only to those who adhere to some formal essence of virginity, without which virginity cannot be.
The careful reader will have noticed that the Catholic Encyclopedia as regards “bodily integrity” seems to affirm its connection to both men and women even though it is only made visibly manifest in women. What would then this “bodily integrity” consist of in men? The answer to that question can only be formulated when one has a proper understanding of what “bodily” means. With that proper understanding alien to modern culture, one can then see a consistency in affirming Mary’s virginity, body and soul, bodily and spiritually, and yet not holding to necessary derivative conclusions from that virginity as pertains to coitus. The moral significance of virginity — which is what virginity is all about, after all it is a virtue per Thomas — is found if it be related to coitus not in coitus as some physical event in space time but coitus (or lack thereof) as it relates to one’s relationship with God in total dedication of one’s soul and body to him. A similar though very different misconception is true of the Resurrection. Christ received a qualitatively different body upon the Resurrection so even science were to demostrably show that Christ’s bones remain on earth that would not disprove the spiritual and bodily Resurrection. Consider our own resurrection at the fullness of time. Suppose we were cremated and are ashes scattered in space. Upon the universal resurrection, it’s not necessarily true that the transfigured bodies we receive will be somehow formed from those scattered ashes; after all if it is atomic* identity that is significant, our bodies exchange such atomic particles with other bodies all the time. There’s nothing in Catholic doctrine which states that our resurrected bodies will made from particles each numerically identical with the particles that our bodies comprised of at death (it has to be at death since again we lose, gain and exchange even with other person’s particles all the time). So this shows again, how, in a different way, the materialist secular world view is not a good starting point from which to apprehend the eternal truths of Christianity.
*atomic here does not mean “atoms” in the sense of contemporary science.
The first * should be ignored in favor of the second *.
“With that proper understanding alien to modern culture, one can then see a consistency in affirming Mary’s virginity, body and soul, bodily and spiritually, and yet not holding to necessary derivative conclusions from that virginity as pertains to coitus.”
One can see all kinds of things. Pink elephants, for instane.
I don’t have time to tackle this all at present, but suffice to say that this application of some higher spiritual meaning of “virginity” to the doctrine of the virgin conception of Christ is completely novel and foreign to Catholic thought and tradition. Pardon me if I go with the constant teahing of the Church on this one.
What do you have to fear so much from a real, bodily incarnation? Or as Chesterton put it; “St. Thomas was becoming more of a Christian, and not merely more of an Aristotelian, when he insisted that God and the image of God had come in contact through matter with a material world.”.
Your attempt to color this belief in real, physical miracles as somehow the result of a secular, materialist worldview is laughable. Were the apostles and their successors all secular materialists, too?
Ruse
If you do not include those who subscribe to certain heresies (for ex. Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons) as Christians then Christianity would not be the largest religion.
It depends which heresies you mean, but from your examples of Oneness Pentecostals and Mormons I think you mean “Non-Trinitarian Christians”. This set would also include Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Christian Science and Unitarians and their combined total amounts to about 50 million of the approximately 2,100 million people who call themselves Christian. Non-Trinitarian Christians are a small minority.
Statistics on religion are not always straightforward or agreed upon. The best overview I have found is at adherents.com
Globally the “big six” are:
Christianity 2.1 billion
Islam 1.5 billion
Nonreligious 1.1 billion
Hinduism 900 million
Chinese trad 394 million
Buddhism 376 million
The 2.1 billion Christians includes:
Catholic 1,100 million
Orthodox 25 million
Episcopalian 77 million
Other Orthodox 52 million
Note that about 3/4 of all those who call themselves Christian are more “Catholic” than “Protestant” in their avowed official understanding of Tradition, Sola Scriptura, Sacraments, Eucharist and Mary. The US and UK are not representative of Christianity globally.
The two largest Non-Trinitarian Christian groups are
Jehovah’s Witnesses 16.5 million
Mormons 12.3 million
The 1.5 billion Muslims includes
Sunni 940 million
Note that some people misleadingly claim that Islam is the world’s largest religion. This is done by adding together Sunni and Shia and then comparing that combined total with Catholics only.
My apologies if I have misunderstood what you meant by “certain heresies”.
Tim, first of all I affirm the Incarnation. But you should know as long as you are going to criticize people for putting “qualifiers” on parts of the creed, that the creed qua liturgical act is not meant to be a theological exposition but is, rightly, a cultic act, its provenance and history notwithstanding. Regardless, Karl Rahner, S.J., wrote of how “Jesus is God” is true depending on what one means by that statement — he affirmed it with qualifications. His own analysis of the Incarnation (I assume that’s what you were referring to above by “incarnation”) involved his affirming that in Jesus the “Realsymbol” of God obtained; “Realsymbol” is just a German compound word — the capitalization is just a quirk of German, not anything significant — which can be translated as “real symbol.” Rahner gave the radical view that Jesus was divine insofar as he was human; that his divinity or his status as Realsymbol of God is something grounded in and directly proportional to the authenticity of his humanity. A book “Karl Rahner” by William V. Dych is a good place to learn about this, in particular the chapter “Transcendental Christology” … see in liturgy, Christological expression may in a creed be expressed in one or a few sentences; in true theological exposition or exploration, Christological insight covers often not one, not several chapters but even whole volumes or even more than one volume … even the Catechism is a self-described summary or compendium, not something meant to be taken as a full theological treatment. My own view takes inspiration from Rahner’s and emphasizes the incarnation of the Logos through the whole course of “salvation history” and not in isolation to the authentic humanity of the man Jesus.
I want to further clarify something … the word “virginity” in more ancient times included the bodily integrity meaning and this was not something specific to Mary (FWIW, Benedict Groeschel IIRC mentions this more ancient understanding) Even the definition in the Catholic Encyclopedia of virginity above even apart from the issue of bodily integrity is more strict than the popular modern conception since someone who has never had any kind of sex but who was not resolved to live chastely but wanted desparately to have coitus at the earliest ripe opportunity would not due to that lack of that formal element be a virgin properly speaking (as should be glaringly obvious but to the modern mind). Lastly I wanted to say that I would affirm that the definition of virginity as it pertains to its meterial element was true of the Virgin, i.e that no “complete and voluntary delectation” obtained in her. I am not suggesting that she was raped though of course as the Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear and makes even explicit later in the article, that is consistent with virginity. Nor am I suggesting that she was incapable of experiencing sexual delectation as some individuals apparently are (so-called “asexual” individuals) even though that would make coitus then consistent with that material element of virginity (though then it wouldn’t be consistent with the physical aspect of bodily integrity … which Catholic Encyclopedia’s understanding of bodily integrity you don’t seem to adhere to anyway — nor do I). What I am suggesting is simply that “complete and voluntary delectation” suggests an orientation of being in that delectation to that created good of pleasure in which one is delecting in. Such delectation involves a giving over of one’s intellect and will to that inferior good of sexual pleasure such that the orientation of one’s being can be properly said to be toward that good in diversion from the good which is God, even if it not be a sin to engage in such diversion. Even if such occurred in Mary, it would not in her case be an orientation of being to such a good in diversion as she was enlightened by the spirit and came to properly speaking know the harmony of such goods with the pure and unadulterated and undivided contemplation of God, her and every man’s supernatural end. This gnosis can be understood in terms of the purgative vs. illuminative vs. unitive ways. One comes to understand towards that truth which I see the church becoming more and more open to, namely that, for example, unity with another human through coitus is not something a diversion from or merely consistent with that unity of love in contemplation of God but is something in which we are united to God and in which we contemplate him. A scientist by looking at a star is not contemplating something other than God but is rather contemplating God in that star or contemplating God in her very contemplation of that star. Likewise in authentic Christian love when we love a neighbor, for example, we are not loving something other than God but are rather loving God in that neighbor or in our loving of that neighbor. Authentic supernatural love of neighbor cannot even exist apart from love of God. This is all of course quite accordant with certain more immanent views of God. There’s not one way to look at our theological patrimony. There are different views within the church as we have seen on the incarnation, virginity (especially as it relates to the birth), and on creation and immanence of God (for ex. Bonaventure has views on that that might shock you). For every dogma (as in revealed truth), there’s many understandings of it which is the way it should be as wrt to if not all, many, dogmas they are mysteries (as in inexhaustible to the human understanding or even incomprehensible to the human intellect)
Tim, on the history channel FWIW sometimes they run documentaries which examine (or features some scholars who examine) for example Paul’s views of the resurrection and square them with a spiritual understanding of the resurrection. As I have said however, in case you missed it, I personally affirm the bodily reality of the resurrection — that Christ today possesses a true and transfigured body even though the nature of that body is not something we comprehend. So I disagree with the materialist view of these scholars on the resurrection and agree with your suggestion that they are a result of a a desire to remain “cool” wrt to the doctrine of the secular elite. I don’t think my view of the virginity of Mary or the incarnation would be palatable to most of the secular elite (by “secular” I don’t mean irreligious but simply of the temporal order as opposed to say of the sacred or clerical order)
Leo, in my experience even amongst Catholics, very few would be able to give an orthodox account of the Trinity (supposedly Bernadette was at one time unable as well). There are even some extremlely rich and doctrinally critical theological truth about the Trinity which is absent from the Catechism (FWIW, it is OTOH present in some of then Ratzinger’s theological writing). But I suppose you could just interprete thes and others to be in implicit assent to what their church creed was … though not only with Catholicism but also with other communities that is questionable.(especially those who do not mediatory authorities between themselves and the word of God — and by “word” I don’t mean just the scriptures)
I didn’t have anything specific in mind with “certain heresies.” My point was that depending on “certain heresies” is you may get figures higher or lower than Islam. For example, Albert Mohler seems to want to exclude anyone who doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth from being counted as Christian … and he seems further to want to exclude anyone who doesn’t believe in the inerrancy (per his understanding of the nature of inerrancy) of the scriptures from being counted as Christian. This would then exclude vast swaths of mainline Protestantism as well as much of Catholicism. Of course certain Christians will want to exclude anyone who hasn’t been “saved” or “accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior” as Christians and for that reason exclude many, most or even all Catholics, for example.
From a Catholic perspective, I suppose one could focus on the ontological character which according to doctrine is imparted with baptism. So one might exclude as Christians those not yet baptized or those who have been baptized only putatively. In past practice, conditional baptisms were much more common than they are now and recently they have become somewhat more common due to a ruling issued on Mormon baptisms. But in discussions with say Muslims I don’t see any reason why Muslims would want to privilege that or any other Catholic perspective on who might count as a Christian over others.
My more important point I thought was that who was bigger should not matter. It’s not exactly something to be proud of. BTW, I’ve heard some say that Buddhism is the largest religion. A lot of figures have a string of controversy attached to them … your own calculation FWIW is missing some things … a careful reading of the website you referred to should key you in on it
“the creed qua liturgical act is not meant to be a theological exposition but is, rightly, a cultic act”
This is a false dichotomy. The creed is both a theological exposition (albeit brief) and a cultic act.
“”Jesus is God” is true depending…”
I have no interest in whatever private definition of the word “Incarnation” Karl Rahner (or anyone else) held or holds, as it has no impact at all on what the Church has constantly and authoritatively taught. Karl Rahner’s opinion carries absolutely no authoritative weight, regardless of how many letters he has after his name. Color me unimpressed.
This approach to the points of the Creed (and I would assume the Bible, as well) is logically upside down.
It is obvious to any unbiased observer that the constant understanding of the whole Church (including the biblical authors) was that Christ was conceived by a direct, completely supernatural act of the Holy Spirit that created this new human life in Mary’s womb while Mary herself remained bodily (and in every other sense) a virgin, hence her response to the angel, “How will this be,…since I am a virgin?”.
This hunt for “deeper, spiritual” meanings behind the plain sense of scripture and authoritative teaching goes completely of the rails when it arrives at a “deeper” meaning that nullifies the primary, plain, ordinary meaning.
The teaching of the Church (through the scriptures and elsewhere) has always been that *at the very least*, Mary remained physically virginal because she never had sexual relations of any kind. The deeper, theological layers of meaning behind this very physical fact are manifold, but they cannot and do not nullify or contradict the obvious, primary meaning of the text.
It’s just batty to come away from the teaching of the Church on this matter holding the opinion that Mary was virginal *in every sense* but the obvious (physical) one. This kind of “affirmation” of the virgin birth is (as I maintained earlier) only an elaborate denial of the virgin birth.
The same holds true for the Resurrection of Christ. The constant and obvious teaching of the Church is that he was resurrected *at least* physically. This doesn’t exhaust the layers of meaning present in his resurrection, but it means physical resurrection at minimum. That is the very beginning of understanding the deeper layers of meaning. Without understanding the physicality of the Resurrection, any deeper spiritual meaning of the resurrection remains opaque.
Again, what is at the root of this fear of incarnational theology? Why shouldn’t God work through manipulating matter? As C.S. Lewis observed; “God likes matter. He invented it.”.
It is a rather too fastidious spirituality that makes no allowance for the real interaction of matter and spirit.
Tim, I believe what caused the humanity which is the Realsymbol of God to come into being was indeed the fruition of a supernatural act. Let me illustrate part of what I see as an unfortunate mentality of materialism (not that you subscribe to materialism, just that IMO sociologically this insidious philosophy has infected virtually all members of society, myself not excluded). You wrote above of miracles and how I seem unconformtable with assenting to miracles as might be dismissed by secular elites. But as I gave hint of in my response, which is the greater miracle (not in the technical classical Catholic sense, but just in the ordinary or biblical sense of wondrous event)? Jesus asked the same or at least similar question when he told a cripple to get up and walk and some Jews criticized him for healing in contravention to the law. Jesus asked which is easier to say: to tell a cripple to get up and walk or to tell a man, your sins are forgiven? In truth, the supernatural work that takes place when someone is baptized or receives grace in confession is far more wondrous than any supernatural work of material wonder. So far from denying the wondrous and supernatural element I am affirming it.
Karl Rahner, FWIW, was a peritus at the Second Vatican Council as was then J. Ratzinger who was at one time Rahner’s student. Also, FWIW, Ratzinger is said to be an admirer of Rahner:
“During this period, Ratzinger participated in the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). Ratzinger served as a peritus (theological consultant) to Josef Cardinal Frings of Cologne. He was viewed during the time of the Council as a reformer, cooperating with radical Modernist theologians like Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx. Ratzinger became an admirer of Karl Rahner, a well-known academic theologian of the Nouvelle Théologie and a proponent of church reform.”
source
I’m still not sure what you mean by “incarnational theology” … different theologians use phrases like that in different ways. I don’t think you understood me as regards the Resurrection. I believe that with the Resurrection Jesus received a real, true body, a glorified, transfigured body. It is Catholic doctrine that this body is qualitatively different from pre-resurrection bodies. It is not Catholic doctrine that our own resurrected bodies when we ourselves are resurrected will necessarily be reassembled from the particles that comprised our bodies at the moment of death (it would have to be relative to one particular moment as I’ve tried to explain we shed and gain and exchange even with other persons particles of our bodies all the time; what makes our bodies our own is not some scheme of atomic numerical identity but that they are the material in which our souls inhere as the forms of said material). Let me reiterate since you have twice now not understood my belief here. I reject theories that interpret the Resurrection as being just a memory or a conciousness or a change in awareness on the part of the disciples. I affirm that the Resurrection included a reception by Jesus of a real, true, glorified body, the kind of body all humans predestined for heaven are predestined to receive. I just don’t believe that God necessarily “assembled” this body from the remains. When a Catholic chooses cremation (which is permitted now) he must not deny the resurrection of the body. It is not considered a denial of the resurrection of the body to disagree with the notion that such resurrection necessarily involves reassembly of those ashes. I’m not even aware of any theologians that make that claim.
As far as your general thoughts on matter, I would never describe God as “manipulating” matter. Our resurrected bodies need not be constituted of the kind of material (or if you prefer “matter”) that our bodies are presently constituted of. FWIW, Jimmy Akin acknowledged this possibility on the radio on at least one occassion. We know very little about the constitution or nature of resurrected bodies. It’s important to realize that Jesus’ resurrection was not a resuscitation properly speaking. Resuscitation is the breathing of life back into a body. Resurrection — his and ours — involves the reception of a new kind of body. Since you seem to not key in to my affirmations on this despite my attempts, let me make more speculative affirmations — I believe the body Jesus received in the resurrection is one that would have the potential of being seen (philosophically this is a very complex issue, but when “seen” is related to some qualia/perception or other and to the proper relation between beheld and beholder that is necessary for being “seen” to obtain, this would be true). But I suspect that both the way resurrected bodies are properly speaking seen and the way in which resurrected invididuals see is going to be different than our present bodies. For example, if there are more than three spatial dimensions in the world of the resurrection, I suspect that resurrected individuals would be able to “see” in more than three spatial dimensions even though as regards to qualia (not mathematical abstraction) we have no acquaintance with that kind of sight. Likewise resurrected bodies may — perhaps unlike our present bodies — exist in more than three spatial dimensions and perhaps even in more than one temporal dimension — so the way in which they would be seen by for example individuals not yet resurrected would differ in character from the way ordinary objects are seen (since for ex. four dimensional objects are not seen in the same way by us should they exist as three dimensional objects would be). Anyway I assure you that on the point of the Resurrection, my view involves a decidedly material as well as spiritual wonder in a manner amenable to your sensibilities.
Back to matter … I wouldn’t say God “manipulates” matter since “matter” — whatever that may be in your conception — is a creature of God and has a nature (or the various exemplifications of it are creatures and have or have in some constituents a nature). So God would respect that nature of matter just as God would respect the nature of man. So for example, God would not call a male human to be in sexual relation with another male human as that goes against how man, a creature, is constituted. Likewise for anything material, it has a constitution in itself or in relation to its worldly environment. So, God would not seek to violate that created order anymore than he would the created order of man. Then one asks what is the constitution of “matter”? Well, I would reject the modern notion which you perhaps partly share, and affirm something rather along the lines of the old medieval and ancient thought that for example the stars influence earthly affairs and that angels influence the stars and employ the stars as instrumental causes of their earthly governance (I affirm something along these lines). As far as “real interaction of matter and spirit” — I’m not sure what you mean there … but as applied to humans for example, arguably, Catholic doctrine does not require (and less arguably opposes) the notion that man’s soul exerts a pull on man’s body independent of anything inherent in man’s body. In Catholic doctrine, the soul of a man is the form of his body and as such inheres in his body. It’s not something that exists external to the body or alongside the body; it inheres in the body as its form.
It’s also occurred to me just now that it would be epistemologically impossible for our own resurrected bodies to be each of them reassembled from particles each numerically identical to the ones we possessed at death. The reason is that the corpses end up shedding particles and some of these shed particles end up being gained by living humans and some of these gained particles will end up being possessed at the moment of death — so then it’d be logically impossible for what I’ve been arguing against to obtain.
I think maybe, Tim, you were confusing what I had written with an argument against the resurrection of ourselves. Not at all. As I’ve tried to make clear, I affirm that at the fullness of time those predestined to heaven will receive glorified, real bodies, bodies capable of being in some sense/manner or other seen, yet qualitatively different than our present bodies. I just don’t believe these resurrected bodies which we will indeed receive will necessarily be reassembled from the same numerically identical particles that comprised our bodies at death. Indeed, as I show in the first paragraph, such an understanding of resurrection is for good reason something I’ve never heard any theologian espousing — apart from being unwarranted it is given what is almost a physical certainty, something that would be logically impossible (and thus in toto, epistemologically impossible)
“So, God would not seek to violate that created order anymore than he would the created order of man.”
God’s manipulation of matter would be the very opposite of a “violation” of the created order. I find it fascinating that you would think otherwise.
You present another false choice in maintaining that the resurrection must consist in either A) the reception of “a real, true, glorified body”, or B) a body “reassembled from the same numerically identical particles that comprised our bodies at death…”.
If Jesus’ resurrection body bore no connection with his earthly body, then what happened to his earthly body? Did it arbitrarily disappear? What prevents his resurrected body from being a glorified, resuscitated earthly body?
The nature of our resurrected, glorified bodies is a mystery. What connection or semblance to “matter” thay may have is up to God. At any rate, the nature of Jesus’ immediate post-resurrection body may or may not correspond exactly to the nature of the body we receive in heaven after the final judgment. Yes, we will be “like him” (as St. Paul says), but how that is can’t be summed up in neat theories that either necessarily include or exclude correspondence to our earthly, material bodies.
Jesus’ resurrection body was certainly more than a physical body, but it was not less.
Tim, it’s not possible for Jesus’ body to have been resuscitated in some kind of two step process. The glorification of Jesus’ body was not preceded by an intermediate stage of mere resuscitation. Jesus’ body received a life qualitatively different; it’s not like earthly life with things just added to it.
I have no clue as to the disposition of Jesus’ remains. I don’t think you realize however that during the time it would have been present in the tomb, that it would have lost many particles. Not only would it have shed parts of hair and parts of skin, but also countless tiny particles on a more microscopic level. You right now are losing countless tiny particles. Some are literally radiating out from your body. This happens with all material objects, dead or alive. So even if there was a continuity of appearance in the resurrection, countless particles of Jesus remains would remain scattered throughout the universe, some of those particles may inhere in your own body and some may not even be on earth.
I don’t know if you’ve seen Babylon 5 but in one episode an individual is near death and takes a ship to some distant place and as depicted in the episode, he seems to enter into some new kind of existence or life. The ship is eventually found with supposedly no body present in it. What transpired there? The episode doesn’t explicate it much and it is left as a mystery of sorts to ponder. And I am content in looking at Jesus’ resurrection and ours that way and don’t see any necessity in knowing the answers to speculative questions concerning Jesus’ departed remains (an issue which as I explained above would still be relevant even on a traditional imagination of the event due to the countless particle loss, some particles inhering possibly in your own body today … if your idea is true then all those countless particles lost and scattered after the Son’s death in myth (i.e. in the humanity of Jesus) would have I presume been recollected at the resurrection … and if the technology were available we would have been able to see particles either teleporting to a different location or if they were moved, strangely moving from various places to a single different location. That’s not a miracle, that’s chaos; God is not quirky in that way.
I am skeptical of more dramatic (from the mortal perspective of what is visible) miracles b/c we don’t observe them today. I used to believe in a miracle associated with Fatima (not required belief for Christians) but I came to be aware of a natural account of the data. For less credible miracles, I never had more than a curiosity about them and my reticence of judgment was well rewarded since I came to learn that they are easily accounted for and even reproducible by science. For example
Miracle Blood of Saint Januarius
In terms of the Shroud of Turin, IIRC there are purportedly bloody remains on it; so if the shroud is authentic, then your view would be problematic once more (since some remains would be left behind in the resurrection of Jesus). Of course the shroud has been proved inauthentic (dating) and even reproduced like the phenomenon above.
Maybe this should clarify things a little … Rahner adopts a notion of Realsymbol not only as regards incarnation but in application to or in analogy with the relationship between a person and his body. So while I would hesitate to use a loaded word such as “physical” (just as some are reluctant to affirm that or just straightforwardly deny that the presence of Jesus in the sacred species is “physical”) since it appears a little vague (as evidenced by for example terminological preferences by philosophers in terms of “physicalism” versus “materialism”), I would if I were to adopt something along the lines of Rahner’s view just simply affirm that a person’s body is that person’s Realsymbol and that that is the essence of what a body is or is oriented to be. In application to the resurrection, I would say wrt to both Jesus’ and ours that Jesus’ present resurrected body is a true, real body and relative to his, if you will human heart (to avoid neo-Nestorian issues), truly at present its Realsymbol and thus just as or (IMO) more truly a body of his at present than it was prior to his resurrection. I suspect by “physical” you might have in mind concepts like “tangible to touch” or “made of more basic material elements” … and I would not affirm that Jesus’ resurrected body is made of for example, quarks, gluons, or strings or what have you (not that I would deny it; I just don’t know … though his body wouldn’t obey (roughly speaking) certain laws of thermodynamics) … I also would not be sure that Jesus’ body properly speaking could be “touched” — I certainly believe that Jesus in his resurrected state could be in a body that when to appearances touched the qualia (sensation) of touch is experienced by the toucher (as some might imagine happened with say Thomas) … but whether it would count in the abstruse philosophical sense of “touch” is a more difficult question (it’d kind of be like whether seeing the sacred species would count as seeing the humanity of Jesus or whether it would count as seeing Jesus … it’s a difficult question to grapple with). But I did affirm tentatively above something as regards sight as that I think is less problematic (one problem of “touch” might occur if you were to import certain concepts of physics into its definition)
“The glorification of Jesus’ body was not preceded by an intermediate stage of mere resuscitation”
Who says there were two steps? Just as Mary was justified *at the moment* of her conception, Jesus earthly body could be resuscitated and glorified not as two separate processes, but as two aspects of the same process.
“Not only would it have shed parts of hair and parts of skin, but also countless tiny particles on a more microscopic level”
So what? Are you saying God would be incapable of bringing such a body back to life… as he clearly did for Lazarus (though Lazarus’ body was not glorified at that time)? You don’t figure He could whip up a few missing particles?
You don’t mean to say that Jesus couldn’t be resurrected bodily because he left behind some blood and hair? I’ve left blood behind on a number of occasions… I don’t expect the good Lord would have to go gather it all up in order to raise me from the dead if he wished. Why would he? What makes this necessary? You speak as though God had to cobble the Universe together from what He had on hand and has since run short of material. Is someone going to conduct a Particle Audit at the end of time?
I have also left behind a fair amount of hair, as my children find very amusing when they point out the slowly expanding patch of thinning scalp on the back of my head. And yet, here I am.
“… I am content in looking at Jesus’ resurrection and ours that way and don’t see any necessity in knowing the answers to speculative questions concerning Jesus’ departed remains…”
“He is not here. He is risen.”
Even the term “resurrection” is rooted in the idea of “rising again”, not in the act of spontaneous, new creation (as a glorified body unconnected to the earthly body). Jesus body rose again, it wasn’t replaced with a new model.
No Tim, I’ve tried explaining my view and each time I fail to commuicate it. I believe Jesus was resurrected bodily just as you do. I just don’t think it’s necessarily true that his resurrected body was reassembled and given resurrected life from his bodily remains — be it the bodily remains that on a quantum level are scattered constantly or the bodily remains of skin or hair or the bodily remains corresponding to other things. You say Jesus may be resurrected bodily while leaving behind some blood and hair — I absolutlely agree with you. I am just extending that by affirming that Jesus may be resurrected bodily while leaving behind not only blood and hair but also the totality of his bodily remains. God did not need those bodily remains for him to effect the resurrection. Let’s suppose that physicists one day discover to their surprise that energy is not conserved, that some energy can by our intervention be obliterated to oblivion and that some particles can likewise be so obliterated to oblivion. Let’s suppose additionally that someone chose to have his remains obliterated in this fashion (even if this not be nomologically impossible, it’s certainly metaphysical possible and possible with possibility ranging over those possible worlds in which the data of revelation obtains). Well that does not mean, Tim, that it would be impossible for God to give that person a resurrected body. God doesn’t need any remains to effect the resurrection of our body. I think that’s what you are not comprehending. Now you may espouse some idea of atomic numerical identity of particles of the earthly body with the resurrected body, but that is not the teaching of the church and nor is it the view of any theologian that I have encountered. One can affirm the traditional imagination of the resurrection (with its continuity of apparition in body) without believing in such absurd views. By “traditional imagination” I mean not my view, but the traditional view.
There are some theologians who believe our resurrected bodies will in some way resemble our present bodies, but there are others who believe for example, that we will be, objectively, more beautiful in our resurrected bodies as perfectly radiant of our beautiful souls. I am aware of no theologian who espouses some view of atomic preservation as vital or essential to our resurrection. In fact I’ve shown previously above its (more or less) logically impossibility. At death you will possess some particles (not necessarily atoms) that will wind up being possesed by someone in the future at death. So then with respect to these particles, will God sent them to your resurrected body or to that future person’s?
Again you repeatedly mistake my argument to be an argument against the resurrection or its bodily nature. It’s neither. It’s only (on this point) an argument against whatever absurd view you are espousing as regards atomic preservation which no theologian to my knowledge has espoused as something entailed by resurrection — indeed its NEGATION is entailed by resurrection (more or less).
Tim, also the resurrected body of ours is not “connected” to our present bodies — they are one and the same bodies — they are numerically identical even though qualitatively different even in “radical” ways. The resurrection of Jesus was a radical event — considered in doctrine to be more wondrous than even the creation of the world. Not because of its miraculous nature (understood in the classical sense) but rather because of the nature of the new creation involved. Our resurrected bodies are numerically identical with our present bodies because numerical identity as it relates to living bodies supervenes on the numerical identity of form that inheres in them, that informs them. Since our resurrected soul is numerically identical with our present soul — even if it be qualitiatively different — our resurrected bodies will of necessitiy be numerically identical with our present bodies.
Arrgh…I don’t know which is worse, seeking easy answers in coincidences or not seeking answers at all. I’ve known about the round-up of the “science” done by the Skeptical Inquirer attempting to “show” that the blood of St. Januarius is a local fake for many years and I have been tempted to write an article debunking the poor scientific methodology used. Suffice-it-to-say, there are many thixotropic compounds (a form of non-Newtoninan fluid) that are known. A classic example is certain areas that simply liquify after an earthquake because of the re-distribution of shear stresses.
[Massive techspeak, ahead – be warned]
Let’s back up. A regular fluid obeys the simply linear relationship between the applied shear, t, and the velocity gradient, du/dy (in the one-dimensional case):
t = v du/dy eq(1).
This means that as the shear increases, so does the flow of the liquid in a linear fashion. As the viscosity becomes large, the fluid becomes more resistant to applied forces, but still will flow.
Fluids that do not obey this law are called non-Newtonian fluids. There are four basic types:
1. Dilatant – (also called shear thickening, STF) as the shear increases, the viscosity increases, sometimes, nonlinearly. These sorts of liquids, essentially, become impenetrable with sudden increases in shear forces. The classic example is corn starch. Such fluids are currently being tested as body armor, because the sudden impact of a bullet drastically increases the viscosity of the relatively thin amount of liquid in the armour to the point where it becomes an impulse dampener and stops the bullet.
2. A pseudo-plastic or plastic fluid shows the opposite behavior. As the shear stress increases, the viscosity decreases. A classic example is toothpaste. It undergoes flow as the stress on the tube is increased.
3. Rheopectic- these types of fluid have a sort of built-in memory and require every-increasing amounts of shear to keep the flow rate constant. They are similar to dilatant fluids, but instead of reacting suddenly, they become more viscous as the stress accumulates. Certain types of gel-filled sneakers might show this.
4. A thixotropic fluid is the opposite of a rheopectic fluid in that, as the shear increases, the fluid thins out and flows, thus requiring less and less shear to maintain a constant flow rate.
Here’s the point, however: I can make any number of thixotropic fluids (they are not hard to make), but saying that because this accidental property (accident being used in the philosophical sense) is “sort of” shared by the blood of Januarius does not prove that the blood of Januarius is, in fact, either a thixotropic fluid or that it is a fake any more than proving that the color of the blood and red pen ink share the same visible color spectrum proves that the blood is red pen ink. This is not how science works.
I can postulate any number of ways in which the fluid in the container might suddenly liquify, one such being a reaction-diffusion process that just happens to have a 365 day cycle and increases the thixotropicity of the liquid at regular intervals. Such a fluid is not known at the present time, but it is not beyond the range of science to construct one in the future.
Just because I can give a possible explanation to mimic a phenomenon does not mean that that particular phenomenon must be happening. Again, these sorts of explanations, done in isolation, run very close to violating the law of the converse accident.
The thixotropic liquids most scientists like to trumpet do not show the same time-dependent behavior under the time-scales involved in the Januarius case. Such slow-flow is unknown at the present time.
Much more convincing would be the oil/wax mixture, if it were anything at all like the dried material inside the sealed glass container holding the blood of Januarius. The wax/oil mixture is a binary fluid mixture with incomensurate properties, since wax shows a much more pronounced temperature-dependent/time dependent flow rate than oil, which is, more or less, a simple linear fluid at room teperatures. Wax undergoes some fairly complex rheological changes as the temperature changes due to, in large part, canges in hydrogen bonding, although, to my knowledge, theoretical models of melting wax have only been developed within the last ten years.
The point is that an oil/wax mixture simply doesn’t look like dried blood. Wax is too transparent unless heavily dyed, in which case the characteristics of the dye add more complications to the science. Again, there are ways to differentiate the oil/wax mixture from what is happening in the blood of Januarius and a simple method would involve nothing more than a thermometer (show the shear/temperature curves do not match).
In any event, mimicing a property, sort of, does not establish anything. The properties must match and show the same behaviors in other situations. To date, changes in other properties and comparisons have not been done. An infrared spectrum of the oil/wax mixture would change with temperature as the hydrogen bonding disappears, for instance, but real blood would not show this effect.
Simply put, the Skeptical Inquirer is jumping to conclusions to support a position they would like to be the case. The only real way to prove or disprove the hypothesis that the blood of Januarius is not real would be to actually test the material inside of the glass container. Since this cannot be done, the jury must remain out.
As for the purported results of the carbon-14 test that was done in the late 1980’s – don’t get me started. Any number of things could have influenced the results. I can think of maybe five without breaking a sweat. This is not the way science is done. One must control all of the variables and only change one at a time to get anything like reproducible results. What is going on in both of these examples is the formation of gross conclusions based on very limited evidence.
Maybe, someday, I will write a book debunking the debunkers. That is not to say that I don’t think that science should be trying to debunk miracles. There are a lot of charlatans in the world, but this not the way to do it.
The Chicken
“God doesn’t need any remains to effect the resurrection of our body”
Agreed. However, this does not prevent Him from *transforming* our real, physical remains into what becomes our glorified body. This does not at all require “atomic preservation”, but, again, transformation. This is the redemption of creation, not the discarding of one created thing for another (our glorified body).
I’d like to see you address the points I made in the post above regarding the plain sense and deeper spiritual sense of the scriptures and teachings of the Church.
FWIW, here’s Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. on resurrection which as he points out is not resuscitation (or in his terminology, reanimation) Also note scripture never applies the word “physical” to the resurrected body; in fact it applies descriptively the word “spiritual” — as in “spiritual body” — this kind of mystery may unnerve those who find safety in cleaving to things that distinguish them from the world (a la what scholars consider Jews to have done), but it is there in scripture.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Resurrection.htm
Note that this Jesuit PhD like me is reluctant to characterize the resurrected body as “physical” and indeed seems to contrast our “present physical bodies” as “totally different” in that regard from the “new spiritual bodies” we are to receive at resurrection.
Resurrection is not resuscitation PLUS nor is it reanimation PLUS. It’s something radically new. That’s why for ex. St. Thomas Aquinas says there is “no parity” between the raising of Lazarus and Jesus’ resurrection, describing Jesus’ post-resurrection life to be — unlike Lazaraus’ post-resuscitation/reanimation life — beyond our “ken.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4055.htm
P.S. FWIW, some speculate even that resurrected individuals may be able to shape-shift. But the essence of the resurrected life is not in these various powers or consequences … its essence is of the spiritual order, transcendent to the locus of human history and science, beyond our ken as Thomas teaches, yet whose fact somehow flowered within the order of history and was encountered by women and men of faith … the testimony of which is not to the dazzle of miracle primarily for in appearances the transcendent Resurrected life would not have been perceived — otherwise they would have intimate knowledge of what Resurrected life is like — but rather, primarily to the hope of resurrection for Christians, the hope of not only freedom from this present order of decay but freedom in a new spiritual and transfigured order in which the whole creation is transfigured and our own lives and bodies built with a new harmony. For as Paul says if Christ has not been raised our faith (and hope) is in vain. He doesn’t mean here that if Christ has not been raised then that would indicate the evidentiary ground for belief is shaky; for the raising of Christ, Paul speaks of is something that in itself could not have been perceived except apparitionally (for the nature of resurrected life was not transparent to any witnesses … they didn’t come to know what it was like). The raising of Christ must be true lest our faith (and hope) be in vain b/c Christ is the first fruits and our salvation is not of disembodied soul, but of body and soul in spiritual body; salvation pertains to the whole person, not just his soul.
“Agreed. However, this does not prevent Him from *transforming* our real, physical remains into what becomes our glorified body. This does not at all require “atomic preservation”, but, again, transformation.”
I agree there’s nothing preventing him from doing that just as you agreed that there’s nothing preventing him from effecting a resurrection without such remains. I have no clue as to whether in my own case, yours or that of any other human being’s whether God elects one method over another. WRT to Jesus’ case, I also don’t know what method God used. All I know is that it happened.
WRT to scripture (I assume you mean generally?), I tend to view scripture through a mythic framework. Different people — even academics — use the word “myth” in various ways. Just so people don’t assume something of my usage, let me note that Scott Hahn affirms the mythic character of some scripture or revealed truth in scripture. When I use the word “mythic” as it relates to “truth” I am speaking of the nature of the truth (for ex. physical truth versus metaphysical truth or mathematical truth versus metamathemtical truth or aesthetic truth etc. — mythic truth is a truth of certain kind). As it relates to scripture, I see the kind of truth that God inspires therein to be primarily of a mythic kind. So for example, I made my view there partly known on a thread on the framework interpretation that Akin favors wrt to Genesis. Anyway it would be best I think to just read that for starters and see if that doesn’t help clarify things.
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/02/the_framework_i.html
To show that my view may be considered orthodox by some (though of course by ultra-traditionalists it would be considered heterodox as would some views intermediary between my own and theirs) see
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20080511_instrlabor-xii-assembly_en.html
So since inerrancy “applies only” to truth of a salvific character, I don’t see any problem in for example supposing that an error was sententially expressed by the human author as regards Jesus’ genealogy. So I don’t have to engage in the lack of fidelity to science that some IMO fall into for the sake of preserving universal sentential inerrancy nor in a real or operative (practical) denial of scripture’s inspired character since for me the truth that is inspired does not consist in the peculiar details (be they scientific, historical, mathematical or even theological parochial to the human author’s limitations) used to formulate it but rather in the thematic or mythic truth that underlies it all or which the sacred stories express as a whole — I still affirm that scripture in all its parts is inspired (despite the ambiguity or uncertainty lodged in the ecclesial document above) and I reconcile that in the post I already made in the other thread above.
In terms of church teaching wrt to those that might be infallible I interpret infallibility along the lines of Avery Dulles’ self-described “moderate infallibilism” and adopt a narrow view of that to which infallibility would extend. For example, many Catholics seem to be under the impression that transubstantiation is an infallible doctrine. It’s not. The Council of Trent only said it was an “apt” way to describe the mystery … and whatever that means what is definite is that it does not constitute an infallible doctrine as to the truth of transubstantiation. I know of no theologian — nada — who opines that transubstantiation is an infallible doctrine of the church. Now as regards the virginity of Mary — some theologians til this day maintain that infallibility there extends to the physical aspect of virginity, i.e. the bodily integrity yet most contemporary theologians seem dismissive of such views. Of course many theologians would maintain infallibility pertains to the understanding of virginity as it relates to absence of voluntary coitus (for example), but that to me is not something that is directly asserted in any purported infallible definition but is rather something that might viewed as entailed by what is asserted. This entailment might be seen as logical (analytic to the definition of virginity — but then that is problematic given the evolving definition as I have outlined previously — so would it be analytic to the definition that was assumed at the time of the proclamation … in that case that definition would have included the physical bodily integrity) or as metaphysical or as nomological or simply as epistemological. Since as I parenthetically argued it is not logical and is rather a step of at best, metaphysical reasoning, the highest great of certainity it could have it seems to me is “sent certa” …. aside from the fact that Ott is not some gold standard of theology also keep in mind when reading him that one must distinguish between the dogma so defined itself that “heads” each section followed by its classification and the body of text that involves the interpretation and Ott’s own understanding of it — an understanding that has been criticized by some …. it would seem to me that in the hiearchy of truth (assuming this is a datum of revelation) that the virginity of Christ would be more fundamental than the virginity of Mary as whatever apologetic value the virginity of Mary prior to Christ’s birth might have, virginity of Christ would be more central to salvific truth as it pertains — directly — to the Realsymbol of God himself … yet Catholics (though not other Christians) seem more reluctant to open themselves to new understandings of Mary’s virginity than they would be to outright denials of Christ’s virginity. One should not in an obsession with fidelity* to the nuances of varying degrees of doctrinal authority not appreciate that those variances do not necessarily correspond to the varying orders in the hierachy of truth.
*Though John Allen has an interesting take on purported fidelity of conservative Catholics, I just use the word here to not be needlessly precise wrt to my own characterization.
Chicken,
I believe The Skeptical Inquirer was addressing the viewpoint that things appear in such a way that one should be persuaded as to its supernatural character. If (I only skimmed your post) as you seem to opine a supernatural and natural explanation are both possible and no evidence peculiar to this matter favors one or the other, then by the principle that extraordinary claims (or beliefs) require extraordinary evidence (or justification), one should not only not be persuaded as to its supernatural character but default to believing that like the rest of the world, nothing extraordinary is happening here.
On the shroud, I am aware of certain controversies as regards dating but there are two problems. The Vatican commissioned the dating and one can’t in some ad hoc fashion then say something was defective in the process that was so comissionsed … if the evidence had despite said defect shown the shroud to be of the “right” age, then would that be touted as evidence? … if so then you have a vicious epistemic cycle of a belief that can always be further confirmed but never disconfirmed (it is worse than merely not being falsifiable!). The second problem I already mentioned. People have been able to reproduce the likeness of the image on the shroud. They have also shown how someone in the middle ages could have used technology existent then to do so. So this second problem in itself is enough to per above to default to the ordinary interpretation.
“So since inerrancy “applies only” to truth of a salvific character…”
No, this is an errant (biased) reading of Dei Verbum. Nowhere is it implied in Church teaching (as opposed to someone’s commentary) that inspiration and inerrancy apply only to “truth of salvific character” (whatever that is… I don’t expect any two people could agree on which passages contain such so called “salvific truth” and which don’t).
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”
The term “for the sake of our salvation” does not in any way limit the inspiration or inerrancy of scripture to certain passages only, but is a descriptive term that acknowledges the Divine motivation behind the revelation of scripture… that it was inspired and given by God “for the sake of our salvation”.
“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven.”
Tim, the original Latin (in DV) does not exclude one interpretation or the other, though contextually yours is a little difficult to justify (since the ambiguity could easily have been resolved in language but was left, it would seem that the less stringent interpretation should be the default as that is how humans ordinarily go about speaking) So I’m not sure why you would suppose it to be biased, especially since the quote “applies only” is in case you didn’t notice from a work of a synod hosted on the Vatican’s official website. The original Latin of that synodal work, FWIW reads:
Quamvis omnes Sacrae Scripturae partes divinitus inspiratae sint, tamen eius inerrantia pertinet tantummodo ad “veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit
which also FWIW, John Allen translates as (departing from the English translation on the Vatican website):
“Although all parts of Sacred Scripture are divinely inspired, nevertheless its inerrancy pertains just to ‘that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see consigned to the sacred writings.”
ncrcafe.org/node/2164
I think either translation is fine and I think John Allen doesn’t quite understand what “might” means in English … it’s not an indication of uncertainty necessarily but the use of a subjunctive mood.
Regardless, it’s an open question as those inclined to more conservative doctrine acknowledge. Indeed the synod ended up recommending that the CDF consider clarifying certain matters pertaining to inspiration, truth and the relationship between the two
Proposition 12: Inspiration and truth in the Bible
The synod proposes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarify the concepts of “inspiration” and “truth” in the Bible, along with their reciprocal relationship, in order to better understand the teaching of Dei Verbum 11. In particular, it’s necessary to emphasize the specific character of Catholic Biblical hermeneutics in this area.
http://ncrcafe.org/node/2228
In terms of reporting, this may interest you
http://ncrcafe.org/node/2207
Some bishops, such as Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, have floated the idea that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith produce a document on the inerrancy of the Bible, in order to resolve what has been an open question since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and its document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum.
This point gets technical in a hurry, but in essence, here’s what’s at stake: How much of the Bible is “inspired” and free from error? Is it just what one might call the Bible’s “theological” content, meaning what it teaches about salvation? Or is the whole Bible inerrant, and therefore “true,” even if that doesn’t necessarily mean literally, factually true?
Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, widely seen as one of the leading thinkers at the senior levels of the church, said in an interview this week that the second option better represents “where we’re at today,” but acknowledged that the issue hasn’t been resolved.
There’s something of a Scylla and Charybdis dynamic inherent to this debate. Veer too far towards saying that only the theological parts of the Bible are inspired, and it can seem like the church is flirting with skepticism; go too far toward saying inerrancy applies to every jot and tittle, and it can end in a kind of Catholic fundamentalism.
In any event if John Allen’s reporting is accurate it would seem my own opinion is consonant with that of Francis George (at least if “where we’re at today” also corresponds with his own view) since my view is that the whole bible and all its constituent parts in relation to all the literary wholes of which they are a part is wholly true even though there may contain sentential assertions which are not (“necessarily”) “factually true.”
WRT to papal statements, keep in mind that in the past some popes have spoken of the nature of inspiration as “dictation” or involving things “dictated” even though today we reject such views. I’m not sure you understand truly my own view. I believe all of scripture is inspired and I believe that all that the primary author asserted through the vehicle of human writing is completely without error even if the vehicle of human writings may itself considered in itself contain error, even theological error. I just happen to believe that the only things asserted by the primary author through the vehicle of human writing are truths salvific in nature. God wouldn’t bother speaking things to us that do not pertain to our salvation in contemplation of him. And God is plenty able to speak salvific truth even through a medium that contains sentences that are factually in error. Just as a child is able to speak the truth of love to his parent even if in writing he may mispell something or even if he might say write a story expressing love and in the course of that story happen to erroneously assert that 1+1=3. The various parts of scripture, including sentences, are inspired and inerrant in an integral sense, not in an atomic sense. I think I already explained this well enough, including in the other thread to which I linked previously.
Dear Ruse,
My point about the blood stands. The Skeptical Inquirer did not propose a natural explanation that matches all of the facts. It pointed to a single property that accidentally binds and even then, imperfectly. There is still no natural explanation that completely replaces the supernatural phenomenon. The correct scientific procedure would be to test the blood of St. Januarius and preferably watch it change. Since this can’t be done, there is not way to tell its provenance.
As to the shroud, I am aware of the process to which you refer, however, simply because a 14th-century or twentieth-century man can reproduce an image that looks like the one on the shroud does not mean that the same technique was used to actually engrave the image. Again, this is an accident of the shroud. In fact, those same techniques available in the 14th-century might have been discovered even earlier. It doesn’t matter. A print may look very similar to an oil painting, but that does not prove that the oil painting is a print. It is the totality and consistency of the evidence that must be determinative in science. The only real way to prove or disprove the point is to show that the shroud has some property that is inconsistent with it being what it claims. Science can only prove a negative. The carbon-14 test could, conceivably do that, in tandem with other tests, but the original testing parameters were so poorly controlled that the results are meaningless.
It is a pity that the actual objects cannot undergo testing. That is the real limitation to this way of trying to prove the naturalness of these phenomena.
The Chicken
“In any event if John Allen’s reporting is accurate it would seem my own opinion is consonant with that of Francis George (at least if “where we’re at today” also corresponds with his own view) since my view is that the whole bible and all its constituent parts in relation to all the literary wholes of which they are a part is wholly true even though there may contain sentential assertions which are not (“necessarily”) “factually true.”
Of course the whole teaching of the Church agrees with George (did you think I held some different view of Scripture?), if you put it that way. But – as I said before – individuals do not get to assign for themselves which places are factually accurate and which ones are not as they like (private interpretation is for Protestants). This is where (again) the constant teaching of the Church (Tradition) disagrees with you.
The issue was *already* clarified to some extent by the following passage from Dei Verbum;
“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven.”