A challenge to intelligent dissident (and orthodox) Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hlafdige
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hlafdige

Guest
Can those of you who dissent defend your critical view of (whichever) Church teaching(s) in the light of this?

The Knucklehead‘s Guide to {Fr. Donald Keefe SJ‘s} Covenantal Theology by John Kelleher
www.catholiclearning.com/knuckle.html

Philosophically savvy Catholics who consider themselves orthodox, has anybody read this? (The work Kelleher is talking about has Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) Can you help me think through the implications of this? All historical reality ordered Eucharistically under the dynamic of sarx {flesh}/mia sarx {one flesh}/pneuma {Spirit/Kingdom reality}? Oh, how I wish I had a head for abstract thinking, this is BIG but I‘m too dumb to do much with it 😦
 
Can those of you who dissent defend your critical view of (whichever) Church teaching(s) in the light of this?

The Knucklehead‘s Guide to {Fr. Donald Keefe SJ‘s} Covenantal Theology by John Kelleher
www.catholiclearning.com/knuckle.html

Philosophically savvy Catholics who consider themselves orthodox, has anybody read this? (The work Kelleher is talking about has Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur) Can you help me think through the implications of this? All historical reality ordered Eucharistically under the dynamic of sarx {flesh}/mia sarx {one flesh}/pneuma {Spirit/Kingdom reality}? Oh, how I wish I had a head for abstract thinking, this is BIG but I‘m too dumb to do much with it 😦
I am not really interested in reading a complete, online text. Why don’t you pull some issue out of the text you have cited, summarize the text’s treatment of this issue and post it for discussion Sounds fun.
 
What a cute answer, best to let it stand for the next guy who, intrigued by Fr. Keefe‘s ideas, googles his name or the title of his work wondering what has been said about it on CAF – this was my first reaction. Not to seem arrogant, Peregrino, and thanks for your post which no doubt expresses what the other 50 thread viewers thought, but as I said, it‘s a stretch for me to grasp Kelleher‘s simplified digest of Keefe, let alone condense it further.

There‘s a question implicit here that would deserve a thread of its own in Philosophy: is reducibility to sound bites our era‘s functional equivalent of an objective criteria for Truth?

I guess the closest I can get would be to reply that Keefe addresses observations like the following
They apparently must be broken on the rack of “magesterial” “truth”…lol
by saying that Catholic theology, both orthodox and dissenting and from Sts. Augustine and Thomas to Hans Küng & Co., has been barking up one very important wrong tree all along.
 
What a cute answer, best to let it stand for the next guy who, intrigued by Fr. Keefe‘s ideas, googles his name or the title of his work wondering what has been said about it on CAF – this was my first reaction. Not to seem arrogant, Peregrino, and thanks for your post which no doubt expresses what the other 50 thread viewers thought, but as I said, it‘s a stretch for me to grasp Kelleher‘s simplified digest of Keefe, let alone condense it further.

There‘s a question implicit here that would deserve a thread of its own in Philosophy: is reducibility to sound bites our era‘s functional equivalent of an objective criteria for Truth?

I guess the closest I can get would be to reply that Keefe addresses observations like the following

by saying that Catholic theology, both orthodox and dissenting and from Sts. Augustine and Thomas to Hans Küng & Co., has been barking up one very important wrong tree all along.
I read you post about a week ago and hoped someone would address it. I have returned and posted to push it back to the top. I really am not interested in reading a complete online text; I have too many other things to do. Your soundbite comment is right on the money, however it doesn’t change the fact that I don’t have the time…lol

Hopefully, my honesty is not too cute for you…
 
Philosophically savvy Catholics who consider themselves orthodox, has anybody read this? (The work Kelleher is talking about has Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur)
The Nihil Obstat means that the work is free from doctrinal or moral error. That is to say, doesn’t repeated teachings formally declared by the Church to be heretical, and isn’t likely to deprave or corrupt.

It is no guarantee that it is not utter garbage, nor is it implied that the censor agrees with any opinions expressed.
 
The Nihil Obstat means that the work is free from doctrinal or moral error. That is to say, doesn’t repeated teachings formally declared by the Church to be heretical, and isn’t likely to deprave or corrupt.

It is no guarantee that it is not utter garbage, nor is it implied that the censor agrees with any opinions expressed.
According to Kelleher, who wrote the „Guide“ linked above, Fr. Keefe says as much himself about the Nihil Obstat etc. on his work. At the very least, these are some genuinely new ideas, scientifically new like Einstein‘s theory of relativity, and on a high intellectual level. I‘d welcome discussion with anyone acquainted with them who thinks they are right, wrong, or simply worth investigating.

I understand time constraints, but the prefaces to Kelleher‘s „Guide“ (first 10 pages) are scarcely longer than the current „What if you cannot reconcile your conscience with church teaching?“ thread on this forum, are no harder to read, and provide a really fresh take on the same subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top