Can dogmas be 're-formulated'...(changed)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter westboro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Explain what this means exactly.”

:newidea: Let’s have the Apostle Paul’s namesake, PPVI, explain it very succinctly:

Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anticlerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none.

Yes, the Church of the council has been concerned, not just with herself and with her relationship of union with God, but with man—man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality. Every perceptible element in man, every one of the countless guises in which he appears, has, in a sense, been displayed in full view of the council Fathers, who, in their turn, are mere men, and yet all of them are pastors and brothers whose position accordingly fills them with solicitude and love. Among these guises we may cite man as the tragic actor of his own plays; man as the superman of yesterday and today, ever frail, unreal, selfish, and savage; man unhappy with himself as he laughs and cries; man the versatile actor ready to perform any part; man the narrow devotee of nothing but scientific reality; man as he is, a creature who thinks and loves and toils and is always waiting for something, the “growing son”; man sacred because of the innocence of his childhood, because of the mystery of his poverty, because of the dedication of his suffering; man as an individual and man in society; man who lives in the glories of the past and dreams of those of the future; man the sinner and man the saint, and so on.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6TOLAST.HTM

"The distinguishing mark of the anti-Christ, is the substitution of man in the place of God." -Pope Saint Pius X, 1903
 
JReducation said:
  1. It requires that you recall everything that you learned in philosophy as an undergraduate student. Professors don’t explain much about what Thomas says.
Click to expand...
Brother Jay, is there one or two philosophy books you would recommend in preparation for reading the Summa?
 
1AugustSon7 said:
That is too bad.

I would love nothing more than a legitimately good Catholic professor to open the Summa for me. As it is, it’s work, struggle and effort. But once I acquire understanding, that understanding is immeasurably rich and rewarding and excellently suited for defending the Faith.
Click to expand...
TrueLight said:
Brother Jay, is there one or two philosophy books you would recommend in preparation for reading the Summa?
Click to expand...
Hmmm . . . let me look to see if the ones that I have on my shelf are still in print or if there are equivalent ones.

You certainly want to be familiar with Aristotle’s methods, Logic, Ethics and some good theology background are the Fathers, especially Augustine.

I promise to look for those books online between tonight and Sunday.

My headache was not the content. I love theology. My headache was

a. It was not a single course, but one of at many per semester and all equally demanding.

b. Three of the four professors were not interested in explaining Aquinas to us. They wanted us to learn his method, then throw the questions at us and have us go through the entire mental gymnastics. If you came on the same conclusion as Aquinas, then you had mastered the method. The fourth professor finally took you through the content, once you had learned to think like Aquinas. From that point it was easier, because you could spot his strengths and his errors. Contrary to what some people believe, he did have some erroneous conclusions that the Church simply shelves and never uses.

c. Aquinas is not taught as apologetics. He’s taught as Systematic Theology along with other systematic theologians. So that while you’re reading Aquinas, you’re also reading other theologians who wrote about the same subjects.

At our school, he was taught thematically. You didn’t begin on page one and go from there. You began with history and method in theology and go from there. You are really all over the Summa. There is no time to go page by page. You have only four years to learn: theology, law, scripture, liturgy, ministry, anthropology, do internships, get ready for comps and write a thesis, if you want to go on for a Licentiate or a Doctorate. If you want to be just a parish priest, you don’t have to write the thesis. You can stop at the M.Div.

For each of these areas there are many other scholars besides Aquinas and some disagreed with him in content and others disagreed with him in approach. The entire Franciscan school disagreed with his approach, but agreed with his conclusions.

You had to read all of these folks as if you were watching a debate unfold before you and you had to evaluate the merits of each argument, not on content, but on system. They knew that if you learned the system, you would understand the content of these thinkers.

While I did learn a great deal, as soon as I finished my M.A. I decided to go on for a degree in Ascetical and Mystical Theology. I had enough philosophizing. I really wanted to get into the journey of the soul.

This is what a typical Theology Curriculum looks like. This is a simple master’s level program.

If all we had to do was read Aquinas, that would be easy. But when you have other things to do and read and then Aquinas is distributed through the curriculum, it’s challenging. It’s not a romantic as it sounds.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
If all we had to do was read Aquinas, that would be easy. But when you have other things to do and read and then Aquinas is distributed through the curriculum, it’s challenging. It’s not a romantic as it sounds.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
The curriculum looks great… romantic. 😃

Which book by St Augustine would you recommend? City of God? I read Confessions.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Scary - one might argue that we in America see example of this as we speak …
Click to expand...
And also this:

(Douay-Rheims) 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now already in the world.
 
This is a great question. I’ve always felt the CCC reference cleared up some misconceptions about the Church. Though the Church has the vicar in the Pope, it has it’s head in Christ and is shepherded by the Holy Spirit. So if the Holy Spirit works outside of the temporal means of the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. miracles, apparitions, other spirit manifested moments in other denominations or even truthful revelations to an atheist, the Catholic Church would lay claim to that as its’ own, or rather couldn’t deny the fact that the Holy Spirit was doing that good. The Church being inseparable from Christ. The Church being the bride of Christ with 3 parts, militant, persecuted, and triumphant, is a living body with many parts, and is hard for us humans to grasp the magnitude of this institution (body would be a more appropriate word for this living thing). But the Church can’t deny these works of the Holy Spirit, just as I can’t deny the works of my hands in regard to the action of my body, I can’t say it acted on it’s own accord, but I’m responsible for the actions of my hand. Christ said no one could go to Father except through Him, and if His bride is the Church, it would make sense that the Church was necessary for salvation. So it really doesn’t violate the traditional statement " no salvation outside the Catholic Church", but rather asserts the Catholic Church as a greater entity than perhaps many previously conceived, but not changing the Traditional understanding of the Church. It is not merely a network of some clergyman, a gathering of buildings and assets; but a living body made up of the members on earth, but also the risen, with Christ at its’ head! Not a new teaching, but clarifying some misconceptions about the definition of the Catholic Church. I believe you’re merely hungup on the definition of the Church rather than the CCC reformulation. But this is merely my own humble opinion and attempt to digest the phrase in question, and I’d like to get insights from others if that is the proper handling? God bless.
 
mjakemccoy said:
This is a great question. I’ve always felt the CCC reference cleared up some misconceptions about the Church. Though the Church has the vicar in the Pope, it has it’s head in Christ and is shepherded by the Holy Spirit. So if the Holy Spirit works outside of the temporal means of the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. miracles, apparitions, other spirit manifested moments in other denominations or even truthful revelations to an atheist, the Catholic Church would lay claim to that as its’ own, or rather couldn’t deny the fact that the Holy Spirit was doing that good. The Church being inseparable from Christ. The Church being the bride of Christ with 3 parts, militant, persecuted, and triumphant, is a living body with many parts, and is hard for us humans to grasp the magnitude of this institution (body would be a more appropriate word for this living thing). But the Church can’t deny these works of the Holy Spirit, just as I can’t deny the works of my hands in regard to the action of my body, I can’t say it acted on it’s own accord, but I’m responsible for the actions of my hand. Christ said no one could go to Father except through Him, and if His bride is the Church, it would make sense that the Church was necessary for salvation. So it really doesn’t violate the traditional statement " no salvation outside the Catholic Church", but rather asserts the Catholic Church as a greater entity than perhaps many previously conceived, but not changing the Traditional understanding of the Church. It is not merely a network of some clergyman, a gathering of buildings and assets; but a living body made up of the members on earth, but also the risen, with Christ at its’ head! Not a new teaching, but clarifying some misconceptions about the definition of the Catholic Church. I believe you’re merely hungup on the definition of the Church rather than the CCC reformulation. But this is merely my own humble opinion and attempt to digest the phrase in question, and I’d like to get insights from others if that is the proper handling? God bless.
Click to expand...
It’s like the story of the acorn and the oak tree. It starts out as an acorn, but in that see there is everything necessary for an oak. No matter how much you try, you will not get a pine out of it.

So it is with doctrine, especially with our understanding of the Church. It began with a seed that had everything in it that God wants us to know about the Church and the faith. But it comes to light as time passes and the seed matures into a plant, a bush and finally a tree. It’s still the same. The oak tree is not different from the acorn. It did not break away from the acorn. It came from the acorn. So does our understanding of the Church and our faith. It comes from what was handed down to us by the Apostles and through the centuries. As the centuries pass, more becomes clear. It’s not new. It’s always been there, just as the tree was always in the seed.

One of the best ways to understand the development of doctrine is to understand human conception. In the zygote is gradma’. Whether it’s a zygote or a 90 year old grandma, she’s the same person who has developed, but has not ceased to be what God meant her to be.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
1AugustSon7 said:
That is too bad.

I would love nothing more than a legitimately good Catholic professor to open the Summa for me. As it is, it’s work, struggle and effort. But once I acquire understanding, that understanding is immeasurably rich and rewarding and excellently suited for defending the Faith.
Click to expand...
Same thing here. I have an graduate degree in philosophy and as part of it I took a class on Kant’s Prolegomena and one on Heidegger. The word “being” still makes me flinch. 😛 Public university there.

But I’d love to read the Summa in a Catholic environment like that.

I know about the work of philosophy. It’s wonderful but it makes your brain sizzle. I’ve slept face down in the center of a book more than once. My husband used to kid me that I was trying to soak it up by sheer physical contact–osmosis. All kidding aside, it’s good work but it’s very hard work. I really enjoyed it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top