Bd-company Or Bd-sisters

relationship between faith and reason: Faith transrational

After reviewing the two dead ends of rationalism and fideism, one can also note that so historically and personally, we can easily switch from one extreme to another. For example, I know people who had a more rational approach and, after some theological studies took refuge in fideism because they failed to rationalize all the proposed content. Conversely, it is also a believer that often follows a confrontation about her faith, begins to search of his reasons for believing in the dark and trying any rationalist to want to understand and solve all the mysteries of God.

As a solution, then we must admit that faith is neither rational nor irrational, but it is rather transrational (to borrow the words of Bishop Leonard). Transrational faith is a faith which, while retaining a link with reason, can also be trusted in Revelation. As the saying Cardinal Barbarin at WYD 2005: "We do not believe reasons, but we have our reasons for believing . Transrational faith relies on reason but without crushing it. Here are two quotes

offering a saint compared between faith and reason: When

reason, enlightened by faith, looking carefully, piety and moderation, it comes with the gift of God to a certain understanding of the mysteries very fruitful or, using the analogy with the things she knows naturally, or through links that connect them and mysteries with the ultimate end of man, but never made it is able to penetrate the same so that the truths which constitute its own object. For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, transcends so that the created intellect, even by the revelation transmitted and received by faith, they are still covered with the veil of faith, and as darkness enveloped in some, as long as in this mortal life, we walk away from the Lord because it is in faith that we walk not in sight. But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, and was revealed in the human mind the light of reason: God can not deny himself, nor truth contradict never true. The mere appearance of conflict comes mostly from what the dogmas of faith were not included and exposed in the spirit of the Church, or when taking false opinions to the conclusions of reason. We define that every assertion contrary to the truth as evidenced by the enlightened faith is totally false. (Vatican Council I, Dei Filius )

ela C does not alter the fact that the current relationship between faith and reason requires to be carefully examined, because reason and faith are both impoverished and weakened the one facing the other. The reason, private Intake of Revelation, has taken side-tracks which expose it to lose sight of its goal. Faith, deprived of reason, has stressed feeling and experience, running the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is illusory to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might have greater force on the contrary, it falls into the general risk of withering into myth or superstition. Similarly, a reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted her interest in the newness and radicality of being. (John Paul II, Fides et Ratio )

can see that the approach is taught by the Church is in the center of the two dead ends of rationalism and fideism. It is also up to each believer to find a balance which will own knowing avoid these deadlocks. Some will need more substance rational while the other will find all this intellectualism them away from the actual experience of God which transcends us.

When I look at people around me in my generation and their attitude in relation to the faith (not necessarily believing themselves), there is one thing that I have often noticed. They pass successively in both impasses of rationalism and fideism and they are having trouble staying balanced. I think this reaction is mainly a certain religious ignorance especially at the reasons for believing (or apologetic). Being ignorant that there are reasons to believe, then they are condemned to fideism. A little later, when they will attempt to question their faith with their reason, they have still not received a solid education regarding the reasons to believe they will try to do this using the rationalist and naturalist vision often received their education and opt for a vision rationalist. Finally, we can realize a significant portion of them, to the precariousness of his two spiritual positions, will simply become agnostic or atheist.

If you are getting your life in some balance on this issue, you are invited to share your solution with others via comment.

Free Astra Frequencies

relationship between faith and reason: The impasse fideism

To set fideism, one could say that it is the opposite of rationalism. It is the refusal to confront the data of faith to reason, as if faith was not based on anything rational, and would do nothing to justify reason. Faith is simply a personal belief that I take because I am willing to adopt. So it would fall more voluntarism as a reality that I should fold. A person fideist often refuse to discuss the reasons why she believes because she has voluntarily severed the rational dimension of faith. It will only answer a small maxim of "I believe because I believe," "faith is a personal matter", "you have not lived what I lived, etc..

To give an example of a vision fideist, I will quote Martin Luther, a important figure of the Protestant Reformation: "The reason is the biggest whore of the devil ... we should trample on and destroy her and her wisdom. Throw him in the face of junk to make it ugly. It is and should be drowned in baptism. She deserves the abominable, that relegates the most disgusting place in the house, firms * . I am not saying that all Christians Protestants necessarily fideist approach, but I think this sentence, despite its vulgar language, though this position represents.

fideism Why is it as an impasse? Because faith has then no sound basis to build. Faith is then considered as a matter of experience and personal feeling. As the faith is not based on anything reasonable, it has difficulty to connect to others and, before that no reasons can then push the other to relativism or religious indifference. For the person himself, when good feelings are more experienced and confrontations happen (believe me it will happen sooner or later), we may be tempted to flee and retreat or even dropping revelation of Christ. It's not for nothing that one can read in the first letter of Peter: "Instead, in your hearts sanctify Christ the Lord, always ready to defend against anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" .

According to our personality, some people are more naturally inclined towards one or other of these deadlocks. In the next article I will try to explain how one can avoid these two extremes.

* The legal philosophy of Martin Luther, Book IV, p. 142

Roses Fuschia Pink Cliparts

relationship between faith and reason: The impasse rationalism

Let's start by defining what rationalism. The Rationalism is defined by an attitude which, a priori, determined that God can not exist, be or act as presented by religion. In its most radical form, rationalism deny anything supernatural or any truth that will not bend to human reason. For example, a person could read the Gospels rationalist trying to explain it all the miracles of Jesus in a purely natural or psychological. It could even attempt to read the Bible while ignoring the passages that contain miracles. What I just described should remind some of the approach of many thinkers of the time "Enlightenment". For example, who has not heard of exegetes explain the miracle of the loaves and fishes by the fact that the crowd would simply shared their food with each other. You know, this loaf of bread and fish that are still lagging behind in his pocket, just in case ...

In a somewhat more moderate approach to the rationalist will be more interested in reusing the concepts contained in the Gospels, but the interpretants in the field of reason. What they reduce to an ideology or as it seemed in earlier times, a certain gnosis (knowledge higher). For example, rather to interpret this rule contained in the Church (Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium), it will rather try to recover what "works" with his ideology (be it Marxism, trade unionism, pacifism ...) and any just ignore the rest that he likes or less opposed to its ideology.

can find many examples of rationalist principles that have been condemned in the syllabus of Pope Pius IX in 1864:

• § I, III: Human reason, considered unrelated to God, is the sole arbiter of true and false, good and evil : It is itself the law, it suffices by its natural powers to procure the good of men and peoples.
• § I, IV: All the truths of religion derived from the native strength of human reason, from which it follows that the reason is the sovereign rule by which man can and must acquire the knowledge of all the truths of all kinds.
• § I, V: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress corresponding to the development of human reason.
• § I, VI: Faith of Christ is opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is useless, but it also affects the perfection of man.
• § I, VII: The prophecies and miracles recounted in the Scriptures are poetic fictions, and the mysteries of the Christian faith are the summary of philosophical investigations, in the books of both Testaments are contained mythical inventions and Jesus Christ himself is a myth.

What is the problem of rationalism that deserves that I define as a dead end? The problem of rationalism is, if only he allows to exist, the Deity (Deism), he locked him in a purely human and natural often. God then can not even be God, he becomes human and is reduced to merge with nature. Resulting in the end, by bringing God to the measure of man, man becomes God.

Does that mean that Christians should not be any way to reason? Absolutely not. Before attempting to define a suitable place to reason, I would like in the next article about another impasse is the opposite: fideism.

Knightsbridge Collection Of Porcelain Dolls

relationship between faith and reason: Introduction

The ratio faith and reason has always been present in the history of Christianity. Any serious Christian happens at times when he questioned and wondered instead it should give reason and faith. Is that faith must be placed above the right? The content of faith personnel must be reasonable? Or should we stop thinking and just believe? Is there a way to believe while being reasonable?

I will not pretend to provide an absolute answer to all these questions in future articles. I believe it is up to each person to find in his life point where he considers it happened to a healthy relationship between faith and reason. Some people are more trusting and others need more reasons to believe.

What I want to present in future articles, these are the two to avoid deadlocks in the relationship between faith and reason. I call them dead ends, because I do not think they are heading for a healthy Christian life rewarding and fulfilling. In addition, each in their own way, they deprive humans of important facets of his being.

The two impasses:

- Rationalism

- The fideism

In the next section, we will begin with a reflection on rationalism.

I Am 20 And Have Mouth Cancer

Nativity of the Lord (standby)

Luke 2, 1-14


In those days there went out a decree from the Emperor Augustus, that identify all the earth - The first census was place when Quirinius was governor of Syria. - And everyone went to be enrolled in his hometown. Joseph, too, left the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David.

can make a beautiful parallel the name of Bethlehem, which means "house of bread" with the bread of life discourse of John chapter 6. So Jesus comes to the world in the city of bread, laid in a manger (where you place the food) and we made this fine speech on the bread of life. How can one not see a large mural of the Eucharistic mystery? Saint Gregory the Great had already made a similar comment in a homily:
Bethlehem means "house of bread. "It was he who said:" I am the living bread come down from heaven. "In advance, the place where the Savior would be born called" house of bread "because it was there that should appear in the flesh who came to feed the souls of his elect (St. Gregory the Great: Homily VIII on pericopes evangelical)

He had to register with Mary, his wife, who was pregnant.
But while they were there, the time came for her to be. And she brought forth her firstborn son and she wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger because there was no place for them in the common room.

Regarding the controversy surrounding at the term "firstborn" in this verse, this is a comment Interestingly Jerome :
Helvidius trying to prove by this passage we can not give the name of first born to him who has brothers, well known only son who is the only child of his parents. For us, here is why: Every single first-born son, but first-born son is not unique. We call the first born, not the one after which other children are born, but he who is born first of all (cf. No. 18, 15). Indeed, if we are the first born we will have so many brothers after him, priests have no rights to the first-born before the birth of other children, for then the failure of these other children, there would be an only son, there would be no first-born. (St. Jerome Helvidius cons).

In the vicinity there were shepherds who spent the night in the fields for their flocks. The Angel of the Lord came, and the glory of the Lord shone around. They were seized with great fear, but the angel said unto them, Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy for all the people: to you is born a Saviour, City of David. He is the Messiah, the Lord. And that's the sign for you: you will find a newborn baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger. "And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly innumerable, praising God and saying:" Glory to God in the highest heavens and on earth peace to men of good will. "

Fire Red Gps Phone Cheat

Music for one apartment and six drummers

One of my favorite SHORT FILMS. I let you see: D
One of my favorite short movies. I let you watch it: D

How To Replace A Tool Box Lock

Merry Christmas

I want to wish a Merry Christmas 2010 to all those who attended, helped, encouraged or who have left comments on this blog during the year. Let's also use this time to remind us the greatest gift we have received is eternal life through Jesus Christ.

You also have the best wishes of my son Oliver, my wife Valerie and small Arianne who was born in a few weeks.

Merry Christmas to all

What Is The Tech Deck Slogan

4th Sunday of Advent A

Matthew 1, 18-24


is how the birth of Jesus Christ. Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been betrothed to Joseph, but before they came together, she was pregnant by the action of the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband was a righteous man, did not publicly denounce And he decided to divorce her secretly.

What can we see the Blessed Virgin superior to other women? If it is not the mother of God, as argued by Nestorius, but only the mother of Christ or the Lord, what would be absurd to give the name of Mother of Christ to all mothers who have received the anointing of holy baptism. But the Blessed Virgin only among women is acknowledged and affirmed both virgin and mother of Christ, because it has not engendered an ordinary man, but the Word begotten of God the Father who became incarnate and became man. Maybe there be objected: Tell me, do you think that the Virgin has become the mother of the god: Here is our answer: The Word is born of God's substance, there has always been equal to his father without ever having had a beginning. He became flesh in these last days, that is to say that he has joined a body animated by a rational soul, and that is why we say it is also born of woman in the flesh. Our present birth quelqu'analogie with this mystery. Our mothers give to nature a bit of flesh which must be coagulated human form, and it is God who sends a soul in this matter. However, while our mothers are the mothers our bodies, they are regarded as having given birth to the whole man, not only the flesh. Something similar happened in the birth of Emmanuel. The Word of God is born of the substance of the Father, yet as he took human flesh and is made clean, we must recognize that it is truly born of a woman in the flesh, and as he really is God, how hesitate to proclaim the Blessed Virgin Mother of God? (St. Cyril: the monks of Egypt).

It was his intention, when the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said: "Joseph, son of David, fear not not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: the child who is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit and she will give birth to a son and shalt call his name Jesus (that is to say:- Lord saves ") because he will save his people from their sins. "
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord said through the prophet:" Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, whom we will name Emmanuel, which means: God with us. "

These words of the prophet Isaiah 7, 14-16: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the young woman is pregnant, she will bear a son and shall call his name Emmanuel. He will eat curds and honey until they know to refuse evil and choose good. For before the child know to refuse evil and choose good, it will be abandoned, the land whose two kings you throw in terror.

Here's what we said Saint Jerome, translator of the famous Vulgate this passage from Isaiah: The prophet
prefaced his prediction of this preface: "God himself will give you a sign; it So this is something new and wonderful. But it is only a question of a young girl or young woman to give birth, not a virgin, where is the miracle? As the name indicates only the age and non-virginity. It is true that it is the Hebrew word which means Bethulia virgin, a word which is not in this prophecy, and is replaced by the word Halma, all the performers, with the exception of the Septuagint, translated by girl. - Now the Hebrew word Halma has a double meaning, because it means girl and which is hidden. Thus it includes not only a girl or a virgin, but a virgin who has never seemed hidden from sight, and on which his parents watch with great care. The Phoenician language, which originates from the Hebrew word Halma also gives the sense of virgin in ours, Halma means holy. The Hebrews use words that are found in almost all languages, and as far as I can see my memories, I do not remember the word Halma has been used only once to express a married woman he is always to designate a virgin, not a virgin any but a virgin still young, because he is of advanced age. However, it was still in its adolescence, or she was a virgin, while above that age where you're not ready to be married. (Catena Aurea 3122)

When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took with him his wife.

How Many Calories In A Sugar Cookies

God vs the rock (the paradox of omnipotence)

This afternoon, I had dinner with friends and one of them asked the following question: "Does God can create a stone he can not lift ? "Under this question, lurks the following reasoning seems to doubt the omnipotence (omnipotence) of God. On the one hand, it can create a stone he can not bear, it is not omnipotent because he can not lift it. On the other, if can not create the stone, so it is not omnipotent because that's something he can not create. How to resolve this dilemma? A bit like the dilemma of 'Euthyphro, this dilemma has a solution.

First I will try to show that, under the false dilemma lies mainly an error on what God is. God is pure spirit and therefore can not literally lift itself from material objects as we imagine our body where the strength of our muscles or machinery should be sufficient. The omnipotence of God must be consistent with his being. We can summarize this by: God can do whatever it is. Do not confuse what is impossible for creatures (us), and what is impossible in itself as within the non-being, nothingness. Take for example the following statements which do not limit his omnipotence, but rather the shows:
- God is Love, he can not hate
- God is Truth, he can not lie
- God is Just, it can not be unfair
This is understandable because if God had to be unjust, he would no longer be God.

Second, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, had already given the explanation that God could do that what was logical and therefore contains no contradiction. This means that if one tries to run to God is illogical statement is invalid and that does not deny the omnipotence of God as the being in question is absolutely not just accidentally while powerful. God can do all that is possible in the realm of being. For example, God could not create a square circle, because this is impossible.

In light of these two explanations, so I think this statement is a fallacy and not a real paradox that contradicts the omnipotence of God. If anyone knows a better explanation or want to try to to challenge this conclusion, you can always do it via comment.

Blood Donation Phamplet

3rd Sunday of Advent A Spiritual Theology

Matthew 11, 2-11

Now John, in prison, had heard of the works of Christ. He sent his disciples and said: "Art thou he that should come or do we look for another? "

This passage of John at first seems a bit strange. Like John the Baptist heard the voice from heaven when he baptized Jesus (John 1: 32-34), it is difficult to believe that John, while he is in jail, doubted the identity or mission Jesus. One of reviews of the most interesting to understand this passage is a commentary of St. John Chrysostom:

It is impossible to admit that the courage or the faith of John have been in prison a failure. He does not fear death, for he exposed himself to death by taking up with Herod so much courage he had not expected his deliverance. The question posed to Jesus can not come from doubt or ignorance. He had noticed that his disciples, giving way to envy, turned against Jesus. They did not know what Jesus they believed this was a man, while they believed John more than a man. Feeling at the time to die, so he wanted to attach them to Jesus. If he had told them: "Go to him, he is older than me," they would have given this speech to his humility. He wants the facts speak and tell the difference between him and Jesus. So he sends two disciples that he believes are most likely to understand. (St. John Chrysostom: XXXVI homily on the Gospel according to St. Matthew)

Jesus answered them: "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind see and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and deaf hear, the dead rise and the Good News preached to them poor and happy is he who will not stumble because of me! "

These words of Jesus are from the book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 35, 5-6: So to open the eyes of the blind, and deaf ears open. Then will the lame leap like a deer and the mute tongue will shout his joy
Isaiah 61, 1: The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because Yahweh has anointed me and he sent me to bring the news to the poor, heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to captives and prisoners issue

Regarding the last part where Jesus said, "and happy is he who will not stumble because of me," this refers to his death on the cross could Premium on board mislead many. As St. Paul said: " but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles " (1 Corinthians 1, 23). As St. Ambrose says:

The basis of the fullness of faith is the Lord's cross, His death, burial. Therefore he said: "Blessed is he who will not fall because of me! Indeed, the cross could bring down the elected officials themselves, but there is no evidence more of a divine person, which seems nothing more than human forces that sacrifice of one for all: for this alone, the Lord is revealed. And finally this is how John was appointed, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Ambrose: commentary on the Gospel according to Luke, V 109)

While as these were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go look in the desert? A reed shaken by the wind? So what did you go see? A man dressed in a sensitive manner? But those wearing delicate garments are in the houses of kings. So what did you go to? See a prophet? Yes, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. It is that which it is written, Behold, I send my messenger ahead of you to prepare your way before you. Verily I say unto you, among the children of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist, and yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. "