Concerned about new Christologies

[theidler]

Hi all,
So I’ve been reading about some of the movements in modern Christology in the 20th century, and am deeply concerned. Actually, I’m startled by the views of theologians both Protestant and Catholic on Jesus and who He was and is. Schillebeeckx is mentioned as a prominent and adept theologian in a course I am doing on Jesus, and yet he allegedly holds Christ as a mere man…is this true? Kung as well holds that Jesus is the revelation of God, but never concedes that He is God, as our creeds say. Why is this kind of theology promoted at all? Why is the historical-critical method so en vogue right now when it is causing theologians to undercut everything that Christianity stands for?
I’m sorry, but I am actually quite upset about learning of the views of some of these theologians - not only Kung (who I cannot understand why on earth he remains a Catholic), Berkhof, Bultmann, Schillebeeckx, etc. etc.
The Church does not concede this kind of re-evaluating of Jesus does she?

 

[po18guy]

Fr. Benedict Groeschel often speaks of the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love. He said, “They are not called the theological virtues because theologians necessarily have them.”

Almost killed me with that one.

 

[triumphguy]

Hi all,
So I’ve been reading about some of the movements in modern Christology in the 20th century, and am deeply concerned. Actually, I’m startled by the views of theologians both Protestant and Catholic on Jesus and who He was and is. Schillebeeckx is mentioned as a prominent and adept theologian in a course I am doing on Jesus, and yet he allegedly holds Christ as a mere man…is this true? Kung as well holds that Jesus is the revelation of God, but never concedes that He is God, as our creeds say. Why is this kind of theology promoted at all? Why is the historical-critical method so en vogue right now when it is causing theologians to undercut everything that Christianity stands for?
I’m sorry, but I am actually quite upset about learning of the views of some of these theologians - not only Kung (who I cannot understand why on earth he remains a Catholic), Berkhof, Bultmann, Schillebeeckx, etc. etc.
The Church does not concede this kind of re-evaluating of Jesus does she?

Kung is not really a Catholic though is he! Barth and Bultmann are very protestant. Schillebeeckx has some good points - but for Catholic meat and drink read Karl Rahner and Hans Urs Von Balthasar!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Unfortunately, most Parish Priests are not equipped to handle sophisticated religious debates. I suggest that you contact the chaplain of the Newman House on your campus and discuss the matter with him. If there is no Newman House at your school, go to the nearest Catholic rectory and try to locate a Jesuit or Dominican Priest in the adjacent town. Make an appointment to see them and pose your questions. They will be able to counsel you as to how to contend with your professor and your course matter without endangering your grade or your faith.

 

[theidler]

Kung is not really a Catholic though is he! Barth and Bultmann are very protestant. Schillebeeckx has some good points - but for Catholic meat and drink read Karl Rahner and Hans Urs Von Balthasar!

But Barth is Christo-centric in a way that others are not.
And Karl Rahner allegedly denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist - not so Catholic sounding to me. Balthasar though is a rarity, I hear he is excellent.
But again I pose the question - why are these figures calling themselves Christians if they deny the central belief that Christ is divine??? I don’t understand this kind of liberal “theology” at all…

 

[catholictiger]

read up on the early councils especially the ones that dealt with Christ

here catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EcumenicalCouncils.htm

mainly Nicea which defined the three persons of the trinity

Ephesus Jesus has both a divine and human nature, but united in his one person.

Chalcedon The earthly Jesus was both fully human and fully divine; his two natures and two wills were perfectly united in his one person

Constantinople 4 Jesus had a fully divine and human will and they didn’t cause him to have two persons.

if any teachings you see goes against any of these teachings lined up here, they are HERETICAL and you should go as far away from the as you possibly can.

 

[triumphguy]

But Barth is Christo-centric in a way that others are not.
And Karl Rahner allegedly denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist - not so Catholic sounding to me. Balthasar though is a rarity, I hear he is excellent.
But again I pose the question - why are these figures calling themselves Christians if they deny the central belief that Christ is divine??? I don’t understand this kind of liberal “theology” at all…

Barth is great: the John Updike novels are steeped in Barthian theology.

BTW - a lot of this is not 'liberal" theology - which is a pointless Americanism when describing European theologians - but Protestant theology.

 

[theidler]

Barth is great: the John Updike novels are steeped in Barthian theology.

BTW - a lot of this is not 'liberal" theology - which is a pointless Americanism when describing European theologians - but Protestant theology.

Fair enough, but Schillebeeckx was Catholic, Kung is “Catholic”, Rahner is Catholic, etc. etc. and somehow Schillebeeckx was one of the theologians involved in Vatican II…but it makes no sense. Why would a theologian who may have held heretical views been allowed on the council? I am really confused here.

 

[theidler]

read up on the early councils especially the ones that dealt with Christ

here catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EcumenicalCouncils.htm

mainly Nicea which defined the three persons of the trinity

Ephesus Jesus has both a divine and human nature, but united in his one person.

Chalcedon The earthly Jesus was both fully human and fully divine; his two natures and two wills were perfectly united in his one person

Constantinople 4 Jesus had a fully divine and human will and they didn’t cause him to have two persons.

if any teachings you see goes against any of these teachings lined up here, they are HERETICAL and you should go as far away from the as you possibly can.

Yes, I am well-acquainted with all of the councils and the early church fathers - this is precisely why I am asking these questions, as I cannot believe that these theologians would fly directly in the face of the early councils.

 

[catholictiger]

Yes, I am well-acquainted with all of the councils and the early church fathers - this is precisely why I am asking these questions, as I cannot believe that these theologians would fly directly in the face of the early councils.

some do that is what happening in this current Church. People atleast in my view aren’t being cathecised. There are some Catholic theologians not as many as protestant and other non catholic theologians who are going against the teachings of the Church. You must remember that most protestants and other non christians see those councils as pointless and over reaching of church authority. So they could care less about what the church says. Again as I said with both Non Catholic theologians and Catholic theologians if you clearly see they are going against Catholic teaching stay away from them.

One example from my life is that rob bell guy, who believed none goes to hell. This was of course clearly against catholic teaching and he had this series of videos that this retreat team i was on sometimes showed. I now refuse to have anything to do with those videos, I’m not sure if that group of mine still shows them. I hope they don’t but I don’t want to say more then that.

 

[Qoeleth]

Hi all,
So I’ve been reading about some of the movements in modern Christology in the 20th century, and am deeply concerned. Actually, I’m startled by the views of theologians both Protestant and Catholic on Jesus and who He was and is. Schillebeeckx is mentioned as a prominent and adept theologian in a course I am doing on Jesus, and yet he allegedly holds Christ as a mere man…is this true? Kung as well holds that Jesus is the revelation of God, but never concedes that He is God, as our creeds say. Why is this kind of theology promoted at all? Why is the historical-critical method so en vogue right now when it is causing theologians to undercut everything that Christianity stands for?
I’m sorry, but I am actually quite upset about learning of the views of some of these theologians - not only Kung (who I cannot understand why on earth he remains a Catholic), Berkhof, Bultmann, Schillebeeckx, etc. etc.
The Church does not concede this kind of re-evaluating of Jesus does she?

Those theologians need to be read in some depth- each of them takes a pretty spohisticated position, which cannot be summaries in formulations of one or two sentences. The Church has never had an “official” theology. Creedal statements are not theology as such. I am sure none of the writers you mention would deny that Jesus is “fully human and fully divine”. But the way to make sense of this statement varies widely- what do we mean by ‘human’, what do we mean by ‘divine’, what do we mean by ‘fully’, what do we mean by ‘is’?. And no theology offers an ‘answer’, but rather (at best) a devout exploration…

I think you will not find better reading on Christology than Rahner, Barth, Bultmann- but they must be read in conjunction with Sartre, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer.

 

[timotheos]

I like to learn about Christ from a theologian by the name of Joseph Ratzinger. He’s not only a gifted academic, but is also a successor of St. Peter.

Now* that’s *real street cred, in my opinion.

 

[fhansen]

Hi all,
So I’ve been reading about some of the movements in modern Christology in the 20th century, and am deeply concerned. Actually, I’m startled by the views of theologians both Protestant and Catholic on Jesus and who He was and is. Schillebeeckx is mentioned as a prominent and adept theologian in a course I am doing on Jesus, and yet he allegedly holds Christ as a mere man…is this true? Kung as well holds that Jesus is the revelation of God, but never concedes that He is God, as our creeds say. Why is this kind of theology promoted at all? Why is the historical-critical method so en vogue right now when it is causing theologians to undercut everything that Christianity stands for?
I’m sorry, but I am actually quite upset about learning of the views of some of these theologians - not only Kung (who I cannot understand why on earth he remains a Catholic), Berkhof, Bultmann, Schillebeeckx, etc. etc.
The Church does not concede this kind of re-evaluating of Jesus does she?

The historical-critical method isn’t the cause of the undercutting; the abuse of this method has caused a lot of garbage theology OTOH. Read Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth to witness a responsible theologian using the tools of hermeneutics responsibly.

 

[Micorhizea]

Hi all,
So I’ve been reading about some of the movements in modern Christology in the 20th century, and am deeply concerned. Actually, I’m startled by the views of theologians both Protestant and Catholic on Jesus and who He was and is. Schillebeeckx is mentioned as a prominent and adept theologian in a course I am doing on Jesus, and yet he allegedly holds Christ as a mere man…is this true? Kung as well holds that Jesus is the revelation of God, but never concedes that He is God, as our creeds say. Why is this kind of theology promoted at all? Why is the historical-critical method so en vogue right now when it is causing theologians to undercut everything that Christianity stands for?
I’m sorry, but I am actually quite upset about learning of the views of some of these theologians - not only Kung (who I cannot understand why on earth he remains a Catholic), Berkhof, Bultmann, Schillebeeckx, etc. etc.
The Church does not concede this kind of re-evaluating of Jesus does she?

I don’t know letter and verse of what the Church prescribes in this matter, but there is no doubt that there is a constant re-evaluation of the details of understanding as new information and insights surface, while “her” core values remain intact.

I don’t know your age or level of education, but anyone aware of what’s going on even superficially in archaeology, history, and anthropology, not to mention linguistics and other disciplines, has to see that much of what we have been passed from the past–however wonderful and holy were the intentions–can be fine tuned in the light of new discoveries.

And I guess we all have to admit that while we learned or acquired our faith from other folks, very few of us are really versed in the deep understandings that are the field of the high level theologian. And I sincerely doubt that any of them, even non-Catholics, are doing what they are doing with the intent of destroying anyone’s faith.

If you have ever been part of a research project with other folks, it would be clear to you that part of what goes on is simply putting* all* the possibilities on the table. Does that mean that all of them are instantly dogma? Not by a long shot. But these things are often a matter of public debate as well as scholarly consideration.

But here is why it is, in my way of seeing, critical to view and comprehend the considerations of not so much the mystics of the Church, but its doctors and lay people who are clearly advanced contemplatives. In this regard it is good to remember that they are not easy to understand, as much as the Church prizes them as shining examples of insight and devotion. Even the best of them had difficulty with the Church itself, as exemplified by what happened to many precious writings of St. Teresa and the situation both she and John of the Cross faced. We may never know what the fullness of their elevated considerations could have been. The monk Meister Eckhart is excellent reading, and there is a cardinal who is superb (not FJ Sheen, though he is admirable,) but I don’t recall his name right now. And there is always, of course, St. Thomas Aquinas.

But there are even contemporary contemplatives who are of exceptional value in this regard, even ones who speak English. That’s where I’d go for any practical and useful Christology, other than as curiosities and food for thought, if you are so inclined with a contemplative tendency of your own. Just be sure you have a good grounding in critical thinking and some verifiable way of interior exploration. Good spiritual counselors are very rare, and excellent ones nearly impossible to find. Many of us don’t even have the tools to tell the difference, so be prepared for some bumps.